- Joined
- Jan 21, 2009
- Messages
- 65,981
- Reaction score
- 23,408
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
As I've often stated, "but what if the person is really guilty and there just isn't evidence to prove it?" is exactly why such what-ifs as YOU raised are worthless. "There isn't enough evidence to prove it" is under presumption of guilt then "not guilty."
Zimmerman's attorney wants a hearing on the issue of legal fees. Largely, this is due to the prosecutor's constant refusal to turn over required documents to the defense. And challenging the legitimacy otherwise.
For you to claim Zimmerman should have to file a lawsuit for it would be an absurd waste of taxpayer money, given there already is a court, a case and hearings before that judge is a "trial" - the same as any other trial. However, the court can take "judicial notice" of everything that happened because the judge either was involved or is the judge of case itself. That would mean the judge would not have to review the transcripts over every motion, every hearing, every argument, every witness and of the trial.
To claim Zimmerman should start a NEW case would waste - minimally 10s to 100s of thousands of taxpayer dollars - given you want GZ to suffer in terms of having to spend his own money.
What possibly reason do you want that massive waste of taxpayer money, already shortages of court time, and tying up prosecutors even more - other than of course you want GZ punished and any more money spent doing so is money well spent?
What not have the judge who handled the case also handle this aspect of it? Why a different judge to start it all again from square one? What is your reason?
Zimmerman's attorney wants a hearing on the issue of legal fees. Largely, this is due to the prosecutor's constant refusal to turn over required documents to the defense. And challenging the legitimacy otherwise.
For you to claim Zimmerman should have to file a lawsuit for it would be an absurd waste of taxpayer money, given there already is a court, a case and hearings before that judge is a "trial" - the same as any other trial. However, the court can take "judicial notice" of everything that happened because the judge either was involved or is the judge of case itself. That would mean the judge would not have to review the transcripts over every motion, every hearing, every argument, every witness and of the trial.
To claim Zimmerman should start a NEW case would waste - minimally 10s to 100s of thousands of taxpayer dollars - given you want GZ to suffer in terms of having to spend his own money.
What possibly reason do you want that massive waste of taxpayer money, already shortages of court time, and tying up prosecutors even more - other than of course you want GZ punished and any more money spent doing so is money well spent?
What not have the judge who handled the case also handle this aspect of it? Why a different judge to start it all again from square one? What is your reason?