• 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 claims judge is biased, wants him replaced

buck said:
If it was that low, you would assume it would have been unanimous.
Click to expand...
Unless the cause presented was also "low." It just means that the case isn't clearly on one side or the other but that there's some room for reasonable disagreement.
If Lester was clearly in the wrong the first time, it seems that a unanimous decision would have been a likely outcome.
 
"The judge against whom an initial motion to disqualify under subdivision (d)(1) is directed shall determine only the legal sufficiency of the motion and shall not pass on the truth of the facts alleged. If the motion is legally sufficient, the judge shall immediately enter an order granting disqualification and proceed no further in the action. If any motion is legally insufficient, an order denying the motion shall immediately be entered. No other reason for denial shall be stated, and an order of denial shall not take issue with the motion."
 
Simon W. Moon said:
"The judge against whom an initial motion to disqualify under subdivision (d)(1) is directed shall determine only the legal sufficiency of the motion and shall not pass on the truth of the facts alleged. If the motion is legally sufficient, the judge shall immediately enter an order granting disqualification and proceed no further in the action. If any motion is legally insufficient, an order denying the motion shall immediately be entered. No other reason for denial shall be stated, and an order of denial shall not take issue with the motion."
Click to expand...

They are saying that Zimm raised potentially valid concerns of the judge's impartiality. So, the panel agreed that Zimm's concerns could be well-founded - not that they necessarily are.
 
Last edited:
sharon said:
I have told you what I want.. a fair trial that is above reproach.

I thought that Lester might step down.. and repeatedly said so weeks ago.

This is a job for a judge.. he doesn't get emotional.. The only persons who have claimed the judge was corrupt have been you and excon.
Click to expand...

Call a spade a spade....

The whole integrity of the judicial process was compromised/corrupted under Lester which led to the reasoning that Z would not get a fair trial in Lester's courtroom
 
buck said:
They are saying that Zimm raised potentially valid concerns of the judge's impartiality. So, the panel agreed that Zimm's concerns could be well-founded - not that they necessarily are.
Click to expand...
AFAICT. The language, as I read it anyway, is that the bar is very, very low. It seems that Lester and one of the three judges on the board didn't think that the bar had been met.
But two guys who opinions matter said that the motion was "legally sufficient."
But it doesn't seem that Lester had to make any rulings about whether or not the case made in the motion was factual.
Idk if the appeals judges had to use a different set of criteria.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
AFAICT. The language, as I read it anyway, is that the bar is very, very low. It seems that Lester and one of the three judges on the board didn't think that the bar had been met.
But two guys who opinions matter said that the motion was "legally sufficient."
But it doesn't seem that Lester had to make any rulings about whether or not the case made in the motion was factual.
Idk if the appeals judges had to use a different set of criteria.
Click to expand...

I think we are in agreement - i'm not quite certain... but my understanding of "legally sufficient" means that the concerns have to be potentially valid and meet the minimum legal requirement. So, the panel ruled that the concerns coudl be valid. They did not make any decision on wether the concerns were indeed valid.
 
buck said:
I think we are in agreement - i'm not quite certain... but my understanding of "legally sufficient" means that the concerns have to be potentially valid and meet the minimum legal requirement. So, the panel ruled that the concerns coudl be valid. They did not make any decision on wether the concerns were indeed valid.
Click to expand...
Lester didn't need to do so. It's seems reasonable for the group who was appealed to to use the same criteria. But I don't know if they did or not.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
Lester didn't need to do so. It's seems reasonable for the group who was appealed to to use the same criteria. But I don't know if they did or not.
Click to expand...

Yes. Both Lester and the appeals panel had to rule on "legal sufficiency", which means that it could be viewed as valid (not that it is) and if valid, it would meet the minimum legal requirements. At least from what I gather by some quick research.
 
joko104 said:
The Court of Appeals just involuntarily threw Judge Lester off the case.


:july_4th:

It is unfortunately he could do such damage and injustice until this happened.
Click to expand...

... the Fifth District Court of Appeal in Daytona Beach ordered Circuit Judge Kenneth Lester Jr. to step aside, saying comments he included in a $1 million bond order were enough to make a reasonable person think he was biased.
Click to expand...
gotta say, you and excon called this
wonder what tastes good with crow .... bet we will soon find out from sharon
 
justabubba said:
gotta say, you and excon called this
wonder what tastes good with crow .... bet we will soon find out from sharon
Click to expand...

Maybe you should read the threads.. I said two weeks ago that it wouldn't matter if Lester was off the case.
 
sharon said:
Maybe you should read the threads.. I said two weeks ago that it wouldn't matter if Lester was off the case.
Click to expand...


Correct, it was Hawk and Dolphin. You claimed a tougher judge would replace him and that she would more inject herself against GZ than Lester did - or rather that she would be harder on him - to which I replied a hard nosed judge is not a problem for GZ in a jury trial, he just needs an legitimate judge who acts impartially.
 
joko104 said:
Correct, it was Hawk and Dolphin. You claimed a tougher judge would replace him and that she would more inject herself against GZ than Lester did - or rather that she would be harder on him - to which I replied a hard nosed judge is not a problem for GZ in a jury trial, he just needs an legitimate judge who acts impartially.
Click to expand...

The consensus is that Nelson is far tougher than Lester.. Guess we'll know soon enough.
 
sharon said:
The consensus is that Nelson is far tougher than Lester.. Guess we'll know soon enough.
Click to expand...

Time will tell what that means. She may not have a lot of sympathy for a 17 year old on his 3rd suspension from school and a vandal violently assaulting a stranger at night because the stranger was watching what he was doing and reporting it to the police.
 
joko104 said:
Time will tell what that means. She may not have a lot of sympathy for a 17 year old on his 3rd suspension from school and a vandal violently assaulting a stranger at night because the stranger was watching what he was doing and reporting it to the police.
Click to expand...

Where you and I differ, is that I don't think school suspensions justify murder.. and I'll bet she would agree.
 
sharon said:
Where you and I differ, is that I don't think school suspensions justify murder.. and I'll bet she would agree.
Click to expand...

Once again, you fail to address a critical issue....
a vandal violently assaulting a stranger at night
Click to expand...
 
joko104 said:
Time will tell what that means. She may not have a lot of sympathy for a 17 year old on his 3rd suspension from school and a vandal violently assaulting a stranger at night because the stranger was watching what he was doing and reporting it to the police.
Click to expand...

Zim has recieved a favorable ruling from the Florida Court of Appeals, on his first issue appealed. Will there be more appeals on issues in this case? How will the Court of Appeals rule next time?


//
 
sharon said:
Where you and I differ, is that I don't think school suspensions justify murder.. and I'll bet she would agree.
Click to expand...

You can't even stay on your own topics. School suspensions and the reasons why contradict your claim that GZ was a perfect behavior 12 year old.

No, you think watching to see where a suspicious person ran off to so you can tell the police would justify you being murdered.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom