• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Zimmerman Recusal Request Ruled "legally insufficient". [W:42]

re: Zimmerman Recusal Request Ruled "legally insufficient". [W:42]

ric27 said:
Stand your ground is an immunity statute (not a defense)
Click to expand...

No, it is a statutory defense. Immunity is just one effect of a successful defense.
 
re: Zimmerman Recusal Request Ruled "legally insufficient". [W:42]

Stardog said:
The legal standard to recuse a judge is way to high.
Click to expand...
I had thought that it was relatively low. It doesn't require "beyond a reasonable doubt" or "a preponderance of evidence," but only that it be legally sufficient.
I don't think there even has to be a determination of whether the facts presented are true or not, just whether or not the request can be justified in terms of the rules.

idk
I am not a lawyer. Just remember from reading an article about the other judges which recused themselves from the case.
 
re: Zimmerman Recusal Request Ruled "legally insufficient". [W:42]

Simon W. Moon said:
I had thought that it was relatively low. It doesn't require "beyond a reasonable doubt" or "a preponderance of evidence," but only that it be legally sufficient.
I don't think there even has to be a determination of whether the facts presented are true or not, just whether or not the request can be justified in terms of the rules.

idk
I am not a lawyer. Just remember from reading an article about the other judges which recused themselves from the case.
Click to expand...

The standard is called 'Abuse of Discretion'. Essentially, it means that the person making the claim to remove must make a showing that the judge must have made a finding with no basis in fact and without any logic or reasoning at all.

So, when an Abuse of Discretion case goes to an appellate court, the appellate court is going to ask itself "Did this judge have any reason for making the finding"?

If they find any reason, the lower courts ruling is upheld. it's an absurd standard and if one wanted to be cynical about it, you could just call it the good ole boys club protecting their own.

* * *

The difference with the other judge is she chose to recuse herself. Also no essential procedures had begun yet. The closer we get to trial the harder it is to back out and just leave. That goes for judges and for attorneys. Hypothetically, even if O'Mara wanted to quit, the judge probably would not let him because he has adequately represented Zimmerman this far. The justice system does not want attorneys and judges quitting in the middle of essential procedures.
 
Last edited:
re: Zimmerman Recusal Request Ruled "legally insufficient". [W:42]

Stardog said:
No, if you read it again, I was specifically talking about the SYG hearing. A hearing is completely different from a trial. FYI.

Also, if Z loses his SYG hearing, the common law self-defense claim he may make at trial will be completely different from the one available to him at the SYG hearing. Common law self-defense, unlike SYG, includes a duty to retreat and the requirement that lethal force can never be used against non-lethal force.
Click to expand...

FN likes this post
 
re: Zimmerman Recusal Request Ruled "legally insufficient". [W:42]

joko104 said:
True, but a judge does decide what evidence, witnesses and questions he will allow.

The judge also decides who he smiles at and nods yes to, and who he frowns at and nods no to.

GZ's attorney should have done a "point of judicial inquiry" and a subpoena to a deposition to ask the judge under oath:

1. "What information did you, Judge Lester, obtain to form the opinion that George Zimmerman lied to his attorney in his private attorney-client privileged communications and how did you obtain it?"

2. "What dates and times have you been alone with any prosecutor of this case, and what was the substance of the communications on each of those occasions?"

The attorney also should add the Judge's name to his potential trial witness list as a rebuttal witness in case the DA tries to present that GZ lied in any pre-trial hearing.

Few attorneys actually will take on a judge, even when they should.
Click to expand...

Lol....#2 is just ridiculous and #1 has already been answered. If people learned basic facts they would make silly posts.
 
re: Zimmerman Recusal Request Ruled "legally insufficient". [W:42]

ric27 said:
Stand your ground is an immunity statute (not a defense)

In this case....Z's counsel raises SYG by filing a motion claiming SYG immunizes Z from prosecution

The judge agrees with Z's counsel (which he won't because the judge is corrupt) then [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]charges are dropped and Z cannot be prosecuted[/FONT]​
Click to expand...

What is the evidence the judge is corrupt?
 
re: Zimmerman Recusal Request Ruled "legally insufficient". [W:42]

Stardog said:
Wrong. An appellant has up to 90 days after a final judgment to file an appeal.





Wrong. the Prosecution asked for a $1 million dollar bond at the FIRST bond hearing. They asked for NO BOND at the SECOND bond hearing.




If you're gonna try and be a smart ass you may want to get your facts straight first.

#1 it makes you look like an idiot & #2 I have to waste my time correcting you. :2wave:
Click to expand...

His posts make more sense if you see them as coming from a TM defender pretending to be a GZ defender.
 
re: Zimmerman Recusal Request Ruled "legally insufficient". [W:42]

joko104 said:
Since the officers of the affidavit both admitted the affidavit was false and just a prosecutor's trick falsely telling each of the two the other one is how had knowledge, the judge is totally agreeable to being lied to if by the prosecution and prosecution witnesses.

This case is showing people the reality of how the criminal justice system works rather than the myths on TV fiction shows.
Click to expand...

When did the officers say it was a false affidavit?
 
re: Zimmerman Recusal Request Ruled "legally insufficient". [W:42]

ric27 said:
The judge has demonstrated clearly, he firmly sides with, the prosecution....

Z will not get a fair hearing

That's a given
Click to expand...

How has the judge demonstrated that?
 
re: Zimmerman Recusal Request Ruled "legally insufficient". [W:42]

Krhazy said:
Is Zimmerman planning on testifying in his own defense?
Click to expand...


His only hope of an acquittal is to testify. If he doesn't he may as well skip the trial and take a deal.
 
re: Zimmerman Recusal Request Ruled "legally insufficient". [W:42]

Furiounova said:
His only hope of an acquittal is to testify. If he doesn't he may as well skip the trial and take a deal.
Click to expand...

A deal for self defense?
 
re: Zimmerman Recusal Request Ruled "legally insufficient". [W:42]

Darroll said:
A deal for self defense?
Click to expand...

There was a woman who fired her gun as a warning shot and she claimed self defense. She was offered a 3 year deal but turned it down. She now has 19 years and 10 months to go before she gets to see the sun without standing on prison soil.

His self defense claim is extremely weak because he needs to convince a jury TM went for his gun and said GZ was going to die. If GZ had killed Scarface that might make sense. There is no way a jury is going to believe TM transformed into a cold blooded murderer that night.
 
Last edited:
re: Zimmerman Recusal Request Ruled "legally insufficient". [W:42]

Moderator's Warning:
Incivility - no longer a part of this thread. Personal attacks - not here anymore. Either of these happens again and we will get involved.
 
re: Zimmerman Recusal Request Ruled "legally insufficient". [W:42]

joko104 said:
You are wrong. The defense cannot wait until after the trial verdict to file an appeal of the judge refusing a motion to recuse himself.
Click to expand...

You are wrong. A party can file an appeal after verdict on any issue (as long as it was preserved on record) that they believe affected the outcome of their case.
 
Stardog said:
You are wrong. A party can file an appeal after verdict on any issue (as long as it was preserved on record) that they believe affected the outcome of their case.
Click to expand...

The SYG hearing is automatic and I think Omara will hold back knowing there is no way he can win with the given evidence. I would be surprised if he put GZ on the stand knowing how much info the prosecution has to tear him apart. His best option would be to hold his best defense close to the chest until the trial.
 
Furiounova said:
The SYG hearing is automatic and I think Omara will hold back knowing there is no way he can win with the given evidence. I would be surprised if he put GZ on the stand knowing how much info the prosecution has to tear him apart. His best option would be to hold his best defense close to the chest until the trial.
Click to expand...


The judge has already declared he will not consider the actions of TM and only the actions of GZ for which the judge has also declared that TM was the only victim of the incident, plus a dozen hate-statements against GZ. So there is no reason for Omara to present anything seeking any ruling for his client. The judge-prosecutor has already announced his rulings. No reason to conduct a hearing when the judge declared his rulings prior to it.

This is one of the few instances where I think the defendant should take the stand and the CORE of the defense should be the radical actions of the prosecution to tear apart GZ and all the corruptions the prosecutor had done to do so. The Defense should engage the politics of the case, but won't.
 
joko104 said:
The judge has already declared he will not consider the actions of TM and only the actions of GZ for which the judge has also declared that TM was the only victim of the incident, plus a dozen hate-statements against GZ. So there is no reason for Omara to present anything seeking any ruling for his client. The judge-prosecutor has already announced his rulings. No reason to conduct a hearing when the judge declared his rulings prior to it.

This is one of the few instances where I think the defendant should take the stand and the CORE of the defense should be the radical actions of the prosecution to tear apart GZ and all the corruptions the prosecutor had done to do so. The Defense should engage the politics of the case, but won't.
Click to expand...

with all the BS accusations you have made against the judge...I'm not sure this means anything at all.
 
Furiounova said:
The SYG hearing is automatic and I think Omara will hold back knowing there is no way he can win with the given evidence. I would be surprised if he put GZ on the stand knowing how much info the prosecution has to tear him apart. His best option would be to hold his best defense close to the chest until the trial.
Click to expand...

I agree O'Mara has to be terrified of the thought of putting Zimmerman on the stand at the SYG hearing. I disagree about holding back though. This is all or nothing because Zimmerman's chances of walking away from this go down dramatically if he loses the SYG hearing. After that, he would be better off begging for a plea deal from the prosecution. The last thing O'Mara wants is a trial because then he can only use common law self-defense and Z will likely lose.
 
Last edited:
Stardog said:
I agree O'Mara has to be terrified of the thought of putting Zimmerman on the stand at the SYG hearing. I disagree about holding back though. This is all or nothing because Zimmerman's chances of walking away from this go down dramatically if he loses the SYG hearing. After that, he would be better off begging for a plea deal from the prosecution. The last thing O'Mara wants is a trial because then he can only use common law self-defense and Z will likely lose.
Click to expand...

I'm only basing it on the chances of a successful SYG and GZ's money lies aside, it will be hard to argue GZ qualifies. If he can successfully argue that he then has to prove by a preponderance GZ acted in SD. If he goes all out at the SYG hearing I think it means Omara plans on recusing himself before the trial because GZ will have his world rocked on cross and his confidence will bottom out and his paranoia will peak. The cash cow has turned into Enron who knows how many more TV interviews he will give.
 
Furiounova said:
I'm only basing it on the chances of a successful SYG and GZ's money lies aside, it will be hard to argue GZ qualifies. If he can successfully argue that he then has to prove by a preponderance GZ acted in SD. If he goes all out at the SYG hearing I think it means Omara plans on recusing himself before the trial because GZ will have his world rocked on cross and his confidence will bottom out and his paranoia will peak. The cash cow has turned into Enron who knows how many more TV interviews he will give.
Click to expand...

I agree that O'Mara will want to be gone but court's just don't let attorneys quit in the middle of a case unless they have urgent circumstances. O'Mara is stuck now to the end whether he likes it or not. On the bright side for O'Mara, even if he loses, he'll still probably get a book deal out of it. :)
 
The prosecutor and judge eliminating GZ's money for investigators and defense, while unlimited funds and staffing for the prosecution, is one primary strategy of the judge and prosecutor towards conviction. The judge even admitted that money had nothing to do with whether or not GZ would appear for trial, only the GPS unit (he fined GZ for having to pay for also without GZ found guilty of anything) does.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom