Re: Unarmed teen shooting: the debate trickles on...

[kiki5711]

Zimmerman's paypal account should be treated no differently than an election fund. The money does not belong to them, but may be used by them for the purpose it was solicited for.
Or am I mistaken and politicians can use campaign funds for bail money?

The politicians probably use it for many reasons including (hoockers), signed off as health expense.

However, when you're in jail, not to wise to use for any other purpose but what the funds were raised for.

[maiforpeace]

Zimmerman's paypal account should be treated no differently than an election fund. The money does not belong to them, but may be used by them for the purpose it was solicited for.
Or am I mistaken and politicians can use campaign funds for bail money?

Ask John Edwards. They can use them for anything they want. Whether it's legal is another matter.

If Zimmerman was going to use that entirely for defending himself, he should have opened a separate account and titled it as such, not mixed just added it to his personal paypal account.

[Coito ergo sum]

He should have just said, "I have this money coming in as donations for my legal defense. I am not sure of its legal status." Then the judge would have sorted it out.

This nonsense where his wife is making a series of transfers of just under $10,000. Well, that's a dead give-away. The banks have to notify the IRS of any transfers or withdrawals of $10,000 or more. So, it seems they were trying to hide something.

It may well be that they were scared and worried that they wouldn't have money to defend the case or even live, given Zimmerman will have no income now, for quite a while. They have bills to pay and stuff, so under the circumstances it is conceivable that they thought the money wasn't something they needed to disclose. However, it seems to me that Zimmerman should have erred on the side of caution. Full disclosure to the court, and if it isn't something the judge would need to take into consideration, then he wouldn't.

I think it was at best a stupid move on the part of the Zimmermans. At worst, it may be criminal, depending on what was asked, exactly, and what was answered, exactly.

[Seth]

If she's convicted ( and how could she not be? ) it will be fabulous ammunition for the prosecution of Zimmerman. He's not just made an innocent mistake, he's taken part in criminal deception of a court.

Nice. It ain't looking good for the piece of shit, who's only defence is his own word.

None of that, including the revocation of his bail, is admissible in his criminal trial because it happened after the incident for which he was charged, so the jury will never hear it, and if they do, it's an automatic mistrial.

[Seth]

He should have just said, "I have this money coming in as donations for my legal defense. I am not sure of its legal status." Then the judge would have sorted it out.

This nonsense where his wife is making a series of transfers of just under $10,000. Well, that's a dead give-away. The banks have to notify the IRS of any transfers or withdrawals of $10,000 or more. So, it seems they were trying to hide something.

Yup. Stupid. It's called "structuring." Knowingly performing a series of financial transactions "structured" so as to evade the mandatory FinCen (federal financial center money-laundering watchdogs) report by deliberately keeping them smaller than the reportable $10,000 amount is in and of itself a federal crime, even if the money being transferred around is entirely lawful income. This law was created to require that anyone, including particularly banks, who receives more than $10,000 at a time, must report the transaction to the feds. Banks are required to send in FinCen reports and there are hundreds of thousands of such reports submitted every day. It's supposed to be an anti-money-laundering scheme to help detect and catch drug dealers, but plenty of innocent people get caught by it merely because they don't think the feds should be allowed to know how they are using their own money.

Did you know it's also illegal to lie to your banker about the source, destination or use of your own money when the bank asks (in order to file a FinCen report)? Yup, it's a federal felony because it's illegal to knowingly lie or make a material misrepresentation about ANY MATTER whatsoever "in which the United States has an interest." Since FinCen "has an interest" in tracking what you do with your money, if you lie to your banker, you're lying to the government and can be prosecuted. It's not just "lying to a federal agent" that will get you in trouble. Almost nobody knows this nasty little fact.

[mistermack]

If she's convicted ( and how could she not be? ) it will be fabulous ammunition for the prosecution of Zimmerman. He's not just made an innocent mistake, he's taken part in criminal deception of a court.

Nice. It ain't looking good for the piece of shit, who's only defence is his own word.

None of that, including the revocation of his bail, is admissible in his criminal trial because it happened after the incident for which he was charged, so the jury will never hear it, and if they do, it's an automatic mistrial.

What bollocks. I'd like to see your link for that.

[Tyrannical]

If she's convicted ( and how could she not be? ) it will be fabulous ammunition for the prosecution of Zimmerman. He's not just made an innocent mistake, he's taken part in criminal deception of a court.

Nice. It ain't looking good for the piece of shit, who's only defence is his own word.

None of that, including the revocation of his bail, is admissible in his criminal trial because it happened after the incident for which he was charged, so the jury will never hear it, and if they do, it's an automatic mistrial.

What bollocks. I'd like to see your link for that.

Seth is a former cop, so he would know..........

[mistermack]

What bollocks. I'd like to see your link for that.

Seth is a former cop, so he would know..........

I know former cops and current cops. They talk bollocks all the time.

[Tyrannical]

Well, Seth is right. It is non-admissible in court for the reason he gives. It may be admissible if he is found guilty for sentencing.

[mistermack]

Well, Seth is right. It is non-admissible in court for the reason he gives. It may be admissible if he is found guilty for sentencing.

In which case, his statement, all the statements of witnesses, the finding of material evidence, and any admissions he might make after caution, all happened after the offence he is charged with, and can't be used.

And doesn't it seem odd to you that his OWN LAWYER said that his credibility is seriously damaged and needs to be rebuilt?

And I seem to remember OJ Simpsons car chase after the alleged murder of his wife being minutely explored in the trial.

[Tero]

Gun nuts meet, a few years back
http://teroreport.blogspot.com/2011/01/ ... y-but.html

[Seth]

Well, Seth is right. It is non-admissible in court for the reason he gives. It may be admissible if he is found guilty for sentencing.

In which case, his statement, all the statements of witnesses, the finding of material evidence, and any admissions he might make after caution, all happened after the offence he is charged with, and can't be used.

And doesn't it seem odd to you that his OWN LAWYER said that his credibility is seriously damaged and needs to be rebuilt?

And I seem to remember OJ Simpsons car chase after the alleged murder of his wife being minutely explored in the trial.

Wrong. The EVENT (potential criminal activity of structuring) occurred after the EVENT for which he is being tried. Two separate potential criminal acts taking place at two separate times. He may be tried for structuring at some later date, but the fact that he is alleged to have engaged in structuring while on bail for 2nd degree murder is not pertinent or admissible in his criminal trial for 2nd degree murder.

Nor, in point of fact, would his conviction (or acquittal) on the 2nd degree murder charge be admissible during a trial for violating US financial reporting laws.

You simply do not understand that in the US, each criminal event is treated completely separately at trial, unless it is a part of an ongoing criminal enterprise or series of events. Thus, someone fleeing the police while being pursued on a murder charge is part of an ongoing situation, and may be considered at trial. But Zimmerman's money problems are not part of the 2nd degree murder case because there is no connection between the two events that would allow the prosecution to bring the latter alleged (and I remind you it's all alleged until he's been tried and convicted of structuring, so the presumption of innocence still applies insofar as the courts are concerned) crime into the murder case.

You may have met cops who spout bollocks, but I assure you in this case I'm 100 percent correct. Call a US criminal lawyer if you disbelieve me.

[Coito ergo sum]

With respect to the bail statements or misrepresentations, they would generally be inadmissible in the criminal trial because evidence that is ONLY relevant to credibility is generally not admissible. The trial is for murder, so the evidence that is admissible must tend to show that a fact of consequence to the case is more likely or less likely than it would be without the evidence. Whether he lied at his bail hearing has no bearing on his intent to kill, whether he killed, and whether he had a right of self defense with deadly force when he killed.

This general rule could conceivably be vitiated if Zimmerman puts his character for honesty at issue in the case, like if he takes the stand and claims that he is an honest man so you can trust him. Then the prosecutor will be able to put in evidence that he is not. However, the likelihood of Zimmerman taking the stand approaches zero, so that isn't likely to happen unless his attorney does it, and there would be no reason for him to do it.

[Coito ergo sum]

With respect to the bail statements or misrepresentations, they would generally be inadmissible in the criminal trial because evidence that is ONLY relevant to credibility is generally not admissible. The trial is for murder, so the evidence that is admissible must tend to show that a fact of consequence to the case is more likely or less likely than it would be without the evidence. Whether he lied at his bail hearing has no bearing on his intent to kill, whether he killed, and whether he had a right of self defense with deadly force when he killed.

This general rule could conceivably be vitiated if Zimmerman puts his character for honesty at issue in the case, like if he takes the stand and claims that he is an honest man so you can trust him. Then the prosecutor will be able to put in evidence that he is not. However, the likelihood of Zimmerman taking the stand approaches zero, so that isn't likely to happen unless his attorney does it, and there would be no reason for him to do it.

[mistermack]

If Zimmerman doesn't testify, he doesn't stand a chance.

I don't see how he can claim he was acting in self defence, without testifying.
Can he write it down, and submit that? I don't see how you can testify in any form, without being cross-examined.
Maybe that's another weird thing in US law? I haven't heard of it.

Anyway, if I was on the jury, and he didn't testify, he wouldn't stand a chance.
You kill an innocent kid, you claim self-defence, and decline to say why?
He's fucked if he does that.

Anyway, legal analysts and Zimmerman's own Lawyer seem to think that Zimmerman's credibility is a major issue because of this :
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/zimmerm ... e-16489107