• 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]

Stardog

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 13, 2012
Messages
787
Reaction score
149
Location
Fairbanks, Alaska
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
(CNN) -- The Florida judge presiding over the murder case against a former neighborhood watch volunteer who killed an unarmed teenager refused a defense request to step aside Wednesday.

In a two-page order, Seminole County Circuit Judge Kenneth Lester said the July request by lawyers for George Zimmerman was "legally insufficient" for him to recuse himself. Zimmerman's lawyers had argued that their client feared he could not get a fair trial before Lester, who had revoked Zimmerman's bond and blasted the defendant for failing to completely disclose his assets at an earlier bail hearing.

There was no immediate response to the ruling from Zimmerman's lawyers.

Judge in Zimmerman case says he won't step aside - CNN.com

Looks like Judge Lester will be presiding over Zimmerman's stand your ground hearing.

Probably not a good thing to have the judge you lied to determining whether you are credible or not.
 
re: Zimmerman Recusal Request Ruled "legally insufficient". [W:42]

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

Probably not a good thing to have the judge you lied to determining whether you are credible or not.

Of course that means the judge is bias. But the potentials for a normal, fair trial long ago vanished. The politicians so corrupted witnesses it has become a case not of what is true, but which statement of most witnesses is the lie and which is the truth?
 
re: Zimmerman Recusal Request Ruled "legally insufficient". [W:42]

Is Zimmerman planning on testifying in his own defense?
 
re: Zimmerman Recusal Request Ruled "legally insufficient". [W:42]

Is Zimmerman planning on testifying in his own defense?


Unknown at this time. It won't be known until he does or doesn't.
 
re: Zimmerman Recusal Request Ruled "legally insufficient". [W:42]

Assuming he has a jury trial, the judge will not be determining whether or not he's credible.

Of course.

The judge, however, will decide what evidence will be admitted for the jury to hear.
 
re: Zimmerman Recusal Request Ruled "legally insufficient". [W:42]

Of course.

The judge, however, will decide what evidence will be admitted for the jury to hear.

Why do you say, "Of course" ? You shoulda' said, "I hadn't thought of that," seeing as it is the exact opposite of what you posted. ;)

(Slow day at DP, Stardog...else't I wouldn't have pointed that out. Ha!)
 
re: Zimmerman Recusal Request Ruled "legally insufficient". [W:42]

Of course that means the judge is bias.

No it means the defense counsel failed to prove the judge is biased.
 
re: Zimmerman Recusal Request Ruled "legally insufficient". [W:42]

Why do you say, "Of course" ? You shoulda' said, "I hadn't thought of that," seeing as it is the exact opposite of what you posted. ;)

(Slow day at DP, Stardog...else't I wouldn't have pointed that out. Ha!)

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

Judge in Zimmerman case says he won't step aside - CNN.com

Looks like Judge Lester will be presiding over Zimmerman's stand your ground hearing.

Probably not a good thing to have the judge you lied to determining whether you are credible or not.

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

Z will not get a fair hearing

That's a given
 
re: Zimmerman Recusal Request Ruled "legally insufficient". [W:42]

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

My absolute bad!!!!!

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

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

Z will not get a fair hearing

That's a given


Or that he just doesn't like being lied to.
 
re: Zimmerman Recusal Request Ruled "legally insufficient". [W:42]

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

SYG is not about defense.....its only a hearing

The judge weighs everything facts/evidence....He decides if the charges are dismissed or not. Period
 
re: Zimmerman Recusal Request Ruled "legally insufficient". [W:42]

No it means the defense counsel failed to prove the judge is biased.



It doesn't mean that at all. It means the judge decided he is going to remain on the case. Nothing more or less.
 
re: Zimmerman Recusal Request Ruled "legally insufficient". [W:42]

Or that he just doesn't like being lied to.


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

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.

Correct. The crude reality of the justice system
 
re: Zimmerman Recusal Request Ruled "legally insufficient". [W:42]

SYG is not about defense.....its only a hearing

The judge weighs everything facts/evidence....He decides if the charges are dismissed or not. Period

Stand Your Ground is a Self-Defense claim and the Hearing is about SYG.
 
re: Zimmerman Recusal Request Ruled "legally insufficient". [W:42]

It doesn't mean that at all. It means the judge decided he is going to remain on the case. Nothing more or less.

Because the defense failed to prove he needed to recuse himself.
 
re: Zimmerman Recusal Request Ruled "legally insufficient". [W:42]

Because the defense failed to prove he needed to recuse himself.

Come on, recusing himself was his choice. Saying the defense failed isn't being realistic. Edit: Oh, okay, one might say they failed to convince him to recuse himself. That might be accurate. They may very well​ have proved it to an impartial panel.

No big deal. Just makes an appeal that much more likely...if indeed there's a conviction.
 
Last edited:
re: Zimmerman Recusal Request Ruled "legally insufficient". [W:42]

Come on, recusing himself was his choice. Saying the defense failed isn't being realistic. Edit: Oh, okay, one might say they failed to convince him to recuse himself. That might be accurate. They may very well​ have proved it to an impartial panel.

No big deal. Just makes an appeal that much more likely...if indeed there's a conviction.

He can appeal if he likes. It won't be overturned. The legal standard to recuse a judge is way to high. After conviction, if he is convicted, it is even higher. He would have to prove the result of the trial would have been different but for the bond revocation ruling. It's absurd notion. There's not even any correlation to a bond hearing and a trial. Especially, when he was still granted bond. if Lester was truly biased, he would have agreed with the prosecutors and denied bond all together.

O'Mara knew this was never going anywhere. It was just a stunt.
 
re: Zimmerman Recusal Request Ruled "legally insufficient". [W:42]

He can appeal if he likes. It won't be overturned. The legal standard to recuse a judge is way to high. After conviction, if he is convicted, it is even higher. He would have to prove the result of the trial would have been different but for the bond revocation ruling. It's absurd notion. There's not even any correlation to a bond hearing and a trial. Especially, when he was still granted bond. if Lester was truly biased, he would have agreed with the prosecutors and denied bond all together.

O'Mara knew this was never going anywhere. It was just a stunt.


That's not really how it would work on appeal. The appeal would have to be filed now to get on record before the trial. That preserves the issue for a post-trial basis for appeal.

O'Mara was trying to put a spotlight on the judge and to at least try to get the judge to say he was impartial.

The prosecution specifically asked for $1,000,000 bond and got it. Try to keep up.
 
re: Zimmerman Recusal Request Ruled "legally insufficient". [W:42]

That's not really how it would work on appeal. The appeal would have to be filed now to get on record before the trial. That preserves the issue for a post-trial basis for appeal.

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


The prosecution specifically asked for $1,000,000 bond and got it.


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.


Try to keep up.

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

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

Stand Your Ground is a Self-Defense claim and the Hearing is about SYG.

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]​
 
Back
Top Bottom