Fired Up: Prosecutor Shouts, Points And Goes All In At George Zimmerman Hearing

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Bernie de la Rionda was fired up on Friday.

The Florida prosecutor chosen to take on George Zimmerman for the killing of unarmed teenager Trayvon Martin was obviously in no mood to watch his defendant go free for the second time this year.

He shouted. He pointed at Zimmerman. He hammered away at witnesses who were called to defend Zimmerman's credibility.

De la Rionda's performance this time was far different than when he went before a Seminole County judge in April to ask for Zimmerman to be kept behind bars without bail until his second-degree murder trial next year.

At that previous hearing, the assistant state attorney was caught off guard by several unusual tactics used by Zimmerman's attorney, Mark O'Mara. The defense attorney introduced evidence the prosecution didn't expect and even called Zimmerman to the witness stand to apologize to the family of the young man he killed.

Zimmerman has pleaded not guilty and claimed he was acting in self defense the night of the Feb. 26 shooting.

"I didn't know we'd be trying the case," de la Rionda said at the time.

The result was that Judge Kenneth Lester Jr. granted the defendant in arguably the highest profile case of the year a deal in which his family would have to pay a bondsman just $15,000 to get him out of jail.

The embarrassment for the prosecution was compounded days later when Zimmerman's attorney revealed on CNN that his client had secretly managed to raise more than $200,000 from donors who supported his claim that he shot the teen in self defense. The money was never disclosed at the hearing and investigators later alleged that Zimmerman's wife had even lied to de la Rionda when she was briefly asked about the money on the witness stand.

Because of the revelation, the judge eventually ordered Zimmerman back to jail and prosecutors charged Shellie Zimmerman with perjury.

On Friday, de la Rionda had no intention of letting anyone off the hook so easily this time.

"I'm not here today to try the case. We're not here, either, to have a Stand Your Ground or self-defense hearing," he said. But instead of stopping there, he went all in. "Frankly, I would welcome it," he said. "Because then the defendant would have to take the stand."

De la Rionda hit hard against the first witness, a forensic accountant hired by the defense to examine the bank accounts that Zimmerman and his family allegedly used to hide the $200,000 from authorities.

The accountant, Adam Magill, testified that there was nothing unusual about the fact that the Zimmermans transferred the money in small amounts to other bank accounts before the April 20 hearing and then transferred it back into George Zimmerman's own account after he was released from jail on bond.

"Ultimately everything was accounted for," Magill said.

The accountant blamed the unusual amounts of the transfers on PayPal, where Zimmerman set up an account to accept donations online. Magill said the company limits transfers to $10,000, which explained why most of the Zimmermans transactions were $9,990 or $9,999.

But when de la Rionda had his turn, he noted those amounts made sense when the Zimmermans were transferring money out of the PayPal account, but it didn't explain transfers of $9,999 between other bank accounts that had no transfer limits. He also said the timing of the transfers didn't make sense.

"Wouldn't you agree that the transfer of money to separate accounts and then the transfer of money back would be a way of misleading authorities?" de la Rionda asked.

"I wouldn't say that it's misleading," Magill said. "But I would say it would be to make it look like you didn't have the money."

It was one of many small victories for de la Rionda throughout the three-hour hearing. Another came when he got a firefighter who treated Zimmerman's wounds the night of the shooting to admit that a large amount of blood for a cut to the head was pretty normal. Yet another victory came when he got the defendant's father, Robert Zimmerman, to admit that he couldn't tell whether it was his son or someone else shouting for help the first time he heard a recording of a 911 call that captured audio of the shooting.

For his part, Zimmerman's attorney went back to the same tactics that worked so well for him in April. He flooded the judge with evidence about the night of the shooting and tried to show his client in a sympathetic light. He asked for Zimmerman to be let out of jail on the same bail amount as before.

But the judge did not appear willing to cut O'Mara any slack this time around. Lester cut him off multiple times during questioning of witnesses and even during his closing arguments.

O'Mara said that his client now knows it was wrong to let his wife lie for him on the witness stand. "He should have jumped up and said she's lying," O'Mara said.

Lester stopped him. "I don't think I would expect that," he said. "Maybe a tug on a sleeve."

O'Mara also said he wanted his client to take the witness stand and explain why things went so badly at the last hearing. He said, though, he would only let Zimmerman testify if it was the judge and not the prosecutor asking the questions.

Lester, however, was uninterested in giving Zimmerman any special treatment.

"He's the same as everyone else," the judge said. "If he wants to testify, he can testify. If he doesn't want to testify, he doesn't have to testify. He has a Fifth Amendment right."

After pausing a few moments to talk it over with his team, O'Mara said Zimmerman would not be testifying.

At the end of the hearing, Lester said he would need time to review the evidence and take it under consideration. He said he would issue his ruling sometime in the future.

Watch clips from Bernie de la Rionda's closing argument:

video

http://tpmmuckraker....tin.php?ref=fpb

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

http://tpmmuckraker....tin.php?ref=fpb

Just my opinion, but the prosecutors are screwed in this case.....they are trying to save face where they can. The latest evidence in this case has only galvanised my resolve that Zimmerman is innocent of any charges above manslaughter, and likely will be left off.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Just my opinion, but the prosecutors are screwed in this case.....they are trying to save face where they can. The latest evidence in this case has only galvanised my resolve that Zimmerman is innocent of any charges above manslaughter, and likely will be left off.

I thought the prosecutor gave a glimpse of what he has in store for the trial and it sounds like a slam dunk, IMO.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

I thought the prosecutor gave a glimpse of what he has in store for the trial and it sounds like a slam dunk, IMO.

What specifically?

There have been two major releases lately.

1. The full documents by the lead investigator who states Zimmerman should be on trial for manslaughter (not murder) due to the fact that he didn't properly identify himself to Trayvon?

or

2. The polygraph test that shows that Zimmerman did not lie when he outlined the events of the attack and believed his life is in danger.

So No 1 is not inherently illegal and No 2 is always the primary factor in proving self defence which Zimmerman satisfies.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

What specifically?

There have been two major releases lately.

1. The full documents by the lead investigator who states Zimmerman should be on trial for manslaughter (not murder) due to the fact that he didn't properly identify himself to Trayvon?

or

2. The polygraph test that shows that Zimmerman did not lie when he outlined the events of the attack and believed his life is in danger.

So No 1 is not inherently illegal and No 2 is always the primary factor in proving self defence which Zimmerman satisfies.

I thought he framed his argument well - that Zimmerman decided to play cop that night and was the aggressor by pursuing Martin, and that he had nothing to go on except his own suspicions of Martin - no evidence whatsoever that Martin was behaving suspiciously or acting inappropriately that night. The prosecutor also got Zimmerman's father to admit that the voice yelling for help doesn't sound like his son. Even Zimmerman himself admitted to the detectives back in February that the cries for help didn't sound like him.

It may be impossible for the jury to determine how the fight transpired once the two of them had a confrontation, but my hunch is that they will find culpability in Zimmerman's actions leading up to that confrontation, with no clear answer from that point on other than an unarmed teenager was shot and killed. Manslaughter sounds like the more appropriate charge as I believe Zimmerman thought he was acting within the law, however flawed his reasoning was.

[Danno 1,228]

I thought he framed his argument well - that Zimmerman decided to play cop that night and was the aggressor by pursuing Martin, and that he had nothing to go on except his own suspicions of Martin - no evidence whatsoever that Martin was behaving suspiciously or acting inappropriately that night. The prosecutor also got Zimmerman's father to admit that the voice yelling for help doesn't sound like his son. Even Zimmerman himself admitted to the detectives back in February that the cries for help didn't sound like him.

It may be impossible for the jury to determine how the fight transpired once the two of them had a confrontation, but my hunch is that they will find culpability in Zimmerman's actions leading up to that confrontation, with no clear answer from that point on other than an unarmed teenager was shot and killed. Manslaughter sounds like the more appropriate charge as I believe Zimmerman thought he was acting within the law, however flawed his reasoning was.

Steve you are desperate to convict Zim no matter the evidence casting doubt on his guilt.

When the case first broke I suspected Zim was guilty after hearing the cry for help, I like most people assumed it was the kids voice. Not only has that crumbled but nearly every other revelation has gone in favor of Zimmerman. By some odd quirk of events Zimmerman even had a history of helping and defending Afro-Americans in his past, how many people could say that?

The only thing the prosecution has left is -Zimmerman followed trayvon when the dispatch advised against it.

The case will be made that a reasonable person might have followed from a distance to see which way Travon went to better aid the police upon arrival.

DO you honestly think Zimmers charges fit the events as we know it?

[Dakine10 5,452]

Steve you are desperate to convict Zim no matter the evidence casting doubt on his guilt.

When the case first broke I suspected Zim was guilty after hearing the cry for help, I like most people assumed it was the kids voice. Not only has that crumbled but nearly every other revelation has gone in favor of Zimmerman. By some odd quirk of events Zimmerman even had a history of helping and defending Afro-Americans in his past, how many people could say that?

The only thing the prosecution has left is -Zimmerman followed trayvon when the dispatch advised against it.

The case will be made that a reasonable person might have followed from a distance to see which way Travon went to better aid the police upon arrival.

DO you honestly think Zimmers charges fit the events as we know it?

Fortunately the actual trial is not being conducted in the court of public opinion. If the defense can argue the case the way you present it, then a jury does have the option to return an aquittal verdict. I would have to think at this point that the prosecution has considered that possibility. In a case of this magnitude, it doesn't seem likely that they would be going to trial with nothing but smoke and mirrors.

Edited July 1, 2012 by Dakine10

[lostinblue 1,989]

actions have consequences....The only thing to argue is who asaulted who.Did George fear for his life as his head was slammed into concrete.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Much like the case in Texas where the guy was recently convicted for shooting and killing his neighbor even though he claimed he feared for his life, this case too will show that the one claiming to be the victim was actually the instigator.

It's going to be a hard sell for Zimmerman's lawyer to convince the jury that Zimmerman went from behaving like an aggressive cop-wannabe to just an innocent citizen crying for help when the person he was pursuing turned and faced him in a confrontation that got physical. Even more damning that Martin was an unarmed teenager 11 years his junior and on his way home, minding his own business. With conflicting eye-witness accounts, conflicting testimony from Martin's girlfriend who was on the phone with him up to the point that there was a confrontation and the conflicting statements from Zimmerman himself who claims his head was being bashed into concrete but no supporting injuries to that claim, the burden of proof for Zimmerman shooting and killing Martin as self defense will be daunting for any jury. I don't see how he'll walk away from this.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Much like the case in Texas where the guy was recently convicted for shooting and killing his neighbor even though he claimed he feared for his life, this case too will show that the one claiming to be the victim was actually the instigator.

It's going to be a hard sell for Zimmerman's lawyer to convince the jury that Zimmerman went from behaving like an aggressive cop-wannabe to just an innocent citizen crying for help when the person he was pursuing turned and faced him in a confrontation that got physical. Even more damning that Martin was an unarmed teenager 11 years his junior and on his way home, minding his own business. With conflicting eye-witness accounts, conflicting testimony from Martin's girlfriend who was on the phone with him up to the point that there was a confrontation and the conflicting statements from Zimmerman himself who claims his head was being bashed into concrete but no supporting injuries to that claim, the burden of proof for Zimmerman shooting and killing Martin as self defense will be daunting for any jury. I don't see how he'll walk away from this.

Here is the thing though, nothing in the above is illegal and unless a witness says Zimmerman physically instigated the fight; his polygraph and Trayvon's autopsy are going to carry the day. Remember too that they were in a public place where any citizen may ask a person what they are doing.

The Texas case has quite a few distinctions.

1. He went to the neighbour's property

2. He was brandishing a weapon

3. He was articulating a script on camera

4. As far as I know, he did not pass a polygraph.

[CarlosAndSveta 808]

Here is the thing though, nothing in the above is illegal and unless a witness says Zimmerman physically instigated the fight; his polygraph and Trayvon's autopsy are going to carry the day. Remember too that they were in a public place where any citizen may ask a person what they are doing.

The Texas case has quite a few distinctions.

1. He went to the neighbour's property

2. He was brandishing a weapon

3. He was articulating a script on camera

4. As far as I know, he did not pass a polygraph.

Passing a polygraph is irrelevant since its results are not admissible in evidence in court.

Edited July 1, 2012 by CarlosAndSveta

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

Here is the thing though, nothing in the above is illegal and unless a witness says Zimmerman physically instigated the fight; his polygraph and Trayvon's autopsy are going to carry the day. Remember too that they were in a public place where any citizen may ask a person what they are doing.

The Texas case has quite a few distinctions.

1. He went to the neighbour's property

2. He was brandishing a weapon

3. He was articulating a script on camera

4. As far as I know, he did not pass a polygraph.

that one in bold is why i disagree about the cases being alike.

being on someone else's property does not grant one the right to stand their ground, as they are trespassing to begin with.

[DaveE 178]

Passing a polygraph is irrelevant since its results are not admissible in evidence in court.

Why do people keep saying that? In Florida, a polygraph is admissable if stipulated by both sides in advance.

Arizona, California, Florida and Nevada permit the use of lie-detector results in court if all parties agree beforehand that they will be admissible. On the other hand, Illinois, New York, Pennsylvania, Texas and the District of Columbia completely exclude polygraph exam results even if all parties want to admit the results

Read more: Use of Lie Detectors in Court | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/about_5271858_use-lie-detectors-court.html#ixzz1zPXLNZ3x

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

The ironic thing is that because evidence is being released even if it doesn't enter into the trial, every juror will be aware of it.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Here is the thing though, nothing in the above is illegal and unless a witness says Zimmerman physically instigated the fight; his polygraph and Trayvon's autopsy are going to carry the day. Remember too that they were in a public place where any citizen may ask a person what they are doing.

The Texas case has quite a few distinctions.

1. He went to the neighbour's property

2. He was brandishing a weapon

3. He was articulating a script on camera

4. As far as I know, he did not pass a polygraph.

I'm no trial lawyer but as far as I understand, what the prosecution will try to establish is culpability. I mean, if you're talking about anyone doing anything illegal that night, neither was Martin, at least until the two of them were in a confrontation, and then that's where things get muddied from all the conflicting things I mentioned earlier. Also, I wouldn't so easily dismiss Zimmerman pursuing Martin as not illegal - because it is illegal to stalk someone. Again, a regular citizen is not a cop and has no business pretending or acting as law enforcement. What we do know is that the two were in physical confrontation and that an unarmed teenager was killed. We also know the circumstances leading up to the confrontation. Where the gray area will be is the burden of proof of Zimmerman's claim of self defense. Maybe the jurors will be able to sort out in a convincing manner how that confrontation really happened, but if they are not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman did in fact act in self defense, what transpired before the confrontation will be extremely relevant in establishing culpability. That is where I see a similarity between the Texas incident. As far as I recall from watching the video, the confrontation happened in the neighborhood and not on anyone's property. Also, from what I read, the jurors felt he was guilty because he instigated the confrontation. But that's probably all that can be compared to the two cases - where determining who was the instigator was a key factor in determining guilt.