Author Topic: Motion to Disqualify Lester  (Read 30333 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Motion to Disqualify Lester
« Reply #30 on: July 17, 2012, 11:53:49 AM »
Guess they are aiming an emotional appeal to the ( mentally ponderous?) first arbitrator of the appeal

Their audience is the public.  They say so.

Offline JoeMenardo

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 42
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Motion to Disqualify Lester
« Reply #31 on: July 17, 2012, 11:59:16 AM »
I found the closing laughable-

Consul for the defendant has made similar Statements in Numerous Public Forums

Look the defense attorney made remarks outside of the courtroom  - yet Omara  dares criticise the judge for extrajudicial  comment!!

Guess they are aiming an emotional appeal to the ( mentally ponderous?) first arbitrator of the appeal

I think they are arguing the similarities in relation to the comments they claim Lester made that might bias the jury pool.  You can't argue Lester commenting that GZ "misled the court" is biasing the jury pool when you go on TV and make similar comments.

Offline Lousy1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4058
  • Rate Post +6/-30
  • Fetch my hammer
Re: Motion to Disqualify Lester
« Reply #32 on: July 17, 2012, 12:04:27 PM »
I think they are arguing the similarities in relation to the comments they claim Lester made that might bias the jury pool.  You can't argue Lester commenting that GZ "misled the court" is biasing the jury pool when you go on TV and make similar comments.

It think you  correct - although as I remember these public statements were subsequent to Lesters remarks and should be considered as damage control.

The remarks should not have been made in the first place.

Offline Lousy1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4058
  • Rate Post +6/-30
  • Fetch my hammer
Re: Motion to Disqualify Lester
« Reply #33 on: July 17, 2012, 12:05:13 PM »
Their audience is the public.  They say so.

I can't find that?

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Motion to Disqualify Lester
« Reply #34 on: July 17, 2012, 12:06:25 PM »
I can't find that?

Page 2, just above "Standard of Review"

Offline Lousy1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4058
  • Rate Post +6/-30
  • Fetch my hammer
Re: Motion to Disqualify Lester
« Reply #35 on: July 17, 2012, 12:17:16 PM »
Page 2, just above "Standard of Review"


Thanks, 
Inyour experience Is that unusual in this type of motion?
 Of course Lester (and potentially an Appellate court) are the presumed audience of the motion 

Offline Philly

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 37
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Motion to Disqualify Lester
« Reply #36 on: July 17, 2012, 12:18:52 PM »
The quotes in public forums from O'Mara refering to Zimerman's "damaged credibility" preceeded the 2nd bond hearing.  But I don't think a reasonable person could say with a straight face that they are comparable to the things O'Mara cites in his order to disqualify Judge Lester.

To me, the most disturbing parts of the Lester's order was his openly inviting the prosecution to pursue additional charges against GZ, and suggesting that contempt of courts sanctions might still be applied.


It think you  correct - although as I remember these public statements were subsequent to Lesters remarks and should be considered as damage control.

The remarks should not have been made in the first place.


It think you  correct - although as I remember these public statements were subsequent to Lesters remarks and should be considered as damage control.

The remarks should not have been made in the first place.

Offline Lousy1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4058
  • Rate Post +6/-30
  • Fetch my hammer
Re: Motion to Disqualify Lester
« Reply #37 on: July 17, 2012, 12:31:18 PM »
The quotes in public forums from O'Mara refering to Zimerman's "damaged credibility" preceeded the 2nd bond hearing.  But I don't think a reasonable person could say with a straight face that they are comparable to the things O'Mara cites in his order to disqualify Judge Lester.

To me, the most disturbing parts of the Lester's order was his openly inviting the prosecution to pursue additional charges against GZ, and suggesting that contempt of courts sanctions might still be applied.

Yes, good point,
But they were primarily in response to Lesters revoke bond ambush. As I remeber that  hearing has expired as source material for the motion to deny.


Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Motion to Disqualify Lester
« Reply #38 on: July 17, 2012, 12:32:10 PM »
In your experience Is that unusual in this type of motion?
 Of course Lester (and potentially an Appellate court) are the presumed audience of the motion

Yeah, it's unusual.

Quite a bit of the state's content is gratuitous insult and non-controversial statements of fact that they hype up.

On page 7, the state asserts that the court is NOT required to consider any affirmative defense to determine whether the evidence the Defendant killed the victim is strong.  That is what they say, which is technically true, but meaningless.  The issue isn't whether or not Zimmerman killed Martin, the issue is whether or not the killing was murder, or justified.  And given that the inquiry isn't "who killed Martin," but is rather "was the killing justified," the court pretty much has to look at the evidence involved in the affirmative defense to get a sense of the relative strength of the opposing sides.

The state doesn't fully address any of O'Mara substantive arguments, e.g., the state does not argue that the court was correct to conclude that Zimmerman was going to flee; the state did not argue that the court was correct to conclude that Zimmerman had no reasonable basis to feel betrayed (an issue not raised by O'Mara); etc.

Offline dragon ash

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 274
  • Rate Post +0/-0
  • Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent
Re: Motion to Disqualify Lester
« Reply #39 on: July 17, 2012, 12:44:45 PM »
On page 7, the state asserts that the court is NOT required to consider any affirmative defense to determine whether the evidence the Defendant killed the victim is strong.  That is what they say, which is technically true, but meaningless.  The issue isn't whether or not Zimmerman killed Martin, the issue is whether or not the killing was murder, or justified.  And given that the inquiry isn't "who killed Martin," but is rather "was the killing justified," the court pretty much has to look at the evidence involved in the affirmative defense to get a sense of the relative strength of the opposing sides.
I agree with pretty much everything you wrote - you know way more about the legal stuff than I do - but just playing devil's advocate here: George hasn't issued a plea, right? So strictly speaking nothing is stopping George from saying, "hell no, I didn't shoot him! I wasn't even there!". So could the State be saying that the Court can't just assume that the defendant admits to the shooting but is going to claim self-defense? So when the Judge says the case is 'strong', he is indeed only referring to the actual identity of the person that shot Martin?

Yeah, I know it's wink wink, 'cause everyone knows George will admit to the shooting but claim self-defense...

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Motion to Disqualify Lester
« Reply #40 on: July 17, 2012, 01:11:28 PM »
I agree with pretty much everything you wrote - you know way more about the legal stuff than I do - but just playing devil's advocate here: George hasn't issued a plea, right? So strictly speaking nothing is stopping George from saying, "hell no, I didn't shoot him! I wasn't even there!". So could the State be saying that the Court can't just assume that the defendant admits to the shooting but is going to claim self-defense? So when the Judge says the case is 'strong', he is indeed only referring to the actual identity of the person that shot Martin?

Yeah, I know it's wink wink, 'cause everyone knows George will admit to the shooting but claim self-defense...

Zimmerman plead not guilty, and there is no way he's going to claim he wasn't there, or that he was there but didn't shoot Martin.  What stops him from doing that is a mountain of evidence, including his own statements.

The state just argues a straw man.  Says the state, "there is no need to inquire about self defense, if the question is 'who fired the shot.'"  Perfectly true.  Beyond argument.  But the alleged crime is more than "who fired the shot," and what O'Mara is saying is that the court is jumping to conclusions on that other stuff.  He isn't arguing that the court has jumped to the conclusion that Zimmerman fired the shot into Martin - hell, he admits that!  The question is how strong is the states CASE, not how strong is the state's evidence that Zimmerman shot Martin.

Reading the motion, my impression is that the state is steamed and emotional.  I think O'Mara got under their skin.  He's probably living in their heads, rent free.

Offline FromBelow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 497
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Motion to Disqualify Lester
« Reply #41 on: July 17, 2012, 01:30:49 PM »
Reading the motion, my impression is that the state is steamed and emotional.  I think O'Mara got under their skin.  He's probably living in their heads, rent free.

I can't interpret from a legal perspective, but it's always been my impression that MOM is playing a chess game and the State is out classed. He seems to be a very smart guy. I think he's had the State worried ever since the original bail hearing where he got the state to admit they didn't know if GZ was returning to the truck or who started the fight. They've been trying to get back at him since. Including trying to get the judge to gag him.

Offline Cylinder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 730
  • Rate Post +0/-0
  • IANAL
Re: Motion to Disqualify Lester
« Reply #42 on: July 17, 2012, 01:35:23 PM »
Including trying to get the judge to gag him.

That's probably the next issue in play. As a layperson, it seems clear to me that the comity portion of the pre-trial proceedings are over and the real fight is brewing. JMHO.

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Motion to Disqualify Lester
« Reply #43 on: July 17, 2012, 02:05:15 PM »
I can't interpret from a legal perspective, but it's always been my impression that MOM is playing a chess game and the State is out classed. He seems to be a very smart guy.

His most recent motion, the one to stay release, stunk logically; and I've had quibbles with some of his other writing and argument.  But his production is WAY better than the state's.

Go through the state's motion, and see how many phrases can be completely removed, without taking away any argument.  See if the state's argument goes to the point of the motion to disqualify, which is a reasonable belief the court is biased.  See if the statements of fact are accurate.

"Defendant takes issue with the Court's determination following a second bond hearing that Defendant and family members who testified on his behalf had not been fully candid and forthright in the dealing with the Court."  Is that true?  I don't think it is.  Defendant admitting hiding the money, or at least O'Mara admitted it, for him.  The argument wasn't that he didn't hide it, or that he differed with a finding that he hid it - the argument was that he didn't trust the system at that moment, and did something wrong as a result.  He corrected the situation, and he's sorry he wasn't square from the start.

That "Defendant's motion is long on conjecture and irrelevant and inaccurate bombast, short on actual fact, and devoid of legal merit" line is a hoot, and as unnecessary as Lester's finding that Zimmerman planned to flee.  Same with the closing line, that the claim there is reasonable belief of bias is absurd on its face.  The state does a little bit of burden puffing there too, from reasonable fear of not receiving a fair trial or hearing (the standard stated in RJA Rule 2.330(d)(1)), to reasonable fear of undue prejudice.

The state's legal arguments suck substantively, too.  It argues that because some of the court's rulings were what defendant asked for (e.g., defendant got bail, could live outside the state, telephonic witnesses), the court isn't biased.  It cherry picks lines from cases, that don't rebut the argument O'Mara is making, that if applied, result in it being IMPOSSIBLE to find bias in a court, no matter what it does.

I'm thinking that it's easy to push de la Rionda's buttons.  Corey's too, if de la Rionda isn't acting irrationally enough.

Offline jupchurch

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 51
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Motion to Disqualify Lester
« Reply #44 on: July 26, 2012, 01:07:42 PM »
I know that a previous poster said that Lester has 30 days to respond to the motion, but it still seems to me that Lester is taking his own sweet time. I can't believe that he hasn't made up his mind about how to respond. Is there any advantage to Lester in procrastinating on this? I mean the first week, he probably had to wait until the smoke stopped coming out of his ears, but now?

 

Site Meter
click
tracking