Zimmerman's former attorneys' actions baffling

The Atlantic Wire has an interesting piece analyzing the actions of George Zimmerman's former attorneys, an piece that comes to the conclusion that perhaps they were the ones that went rogue, not their client.  Some of the reasons include:

They gave a press conference.  Dropping a client isn't unusual, lawyers do it every day.  But quitting via press conference is highly unusual.

Kendall Coffey, a former U.S. Attorney in Miami and author of Spinning the Law, said Uhrig and Sonner's decision to hold a news conference was baffling. "The lawyers have every right to withdraw, but it's highly unusual," he said. "In the court of public opinion, the press conference was not helpful for George Zimmerman."

They discussed George Zimmerman's mental state: Describing Zimmerman as "emotionally crippled" and posssibly suffering from PTSD is not only in bad taste, it's unethical.

"It's unbelievable that you would get on television and talk about your client's mental state," Jose Baez, a criminal defense attorney told CNN last night. "What you have here, as an attorney, you have an ethical obligation to not only not post attorney-client communication but attorney-client confidence. Things you learn in the process of representing a client are considered confidential so any conversations they have are completely protected and the holder of this privilege is George Zimmerman ... It's reprehensible."

Other concerns include the fact that they only waited three days after not hearing from Zimmerman before having a press conference and that, through explaining this, they implied that Zimmerman might be a flight risk, therefore damaging his reputation. 

George Zimmerman arraignment is set for May 29

George Zimmerman, the neighborhood watchman who shot and killed Trayvon Martin, is scheduled for an arraignment on May 29th.  So far, he has not entered a plea.

His lawyer has requested that any future records in the case, including witness statements and identifying information, be completely sealed in order to prevent the case from being tried in the media.  The prosecution agreed, but will release a two-page affidavit supporting the state's second degree murder charge.

Of course, that's assuming that the charge sticks.  According to the Miami Herald, former Miami U.S. Attorney and author of Spinning the Law Kendall Coffey suggested the prosecution might not stay with the charge through trial. Mostly because a jury could, under some circumstances, toss the second-degree murder charge and convict of a lesser charge, such as manslaughter.  This is because in order to prove Zimmerman guilty of second-degree murder they will have to show that he acted with a depraved mind when he shot Trayvon.

“This is an aggressive charge,” Coffey said. “And there are times when an aggressive charge gives more incentive for the defendant to seek a plea. The vast majority of cases don’t go to trial and end in a plea.”

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/04/12/v-fullstory/2744193/george-zimmerman-charged-with.html#storylink=cpy

Zimmerman Bond Not Unusual

Kendall Coffey, partner with Coffey Burlington and former U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, was featured in theGrio recently discussing the Trayvon Martin case and George Zimmerman-  especially the bail recently set by the judge in the case.  The amount of the bond was much lower than teh $1 million requested by the prosecution, and many are calling it a travesty.

"It shows you the worth of a 17-year-old black boy in America, who's been unjustly murdered and whose life is taken for granted," said Dr. Michael Eric Dyson, an MSNBC contributor and Georgetown University professor.

However, Kendall Coffey explained that the cost of a bail is based on the presumption  that defendants are innocent until proven guilty.

"Obviously, if this were Donald trump or Bill Gates accused of a crime, that would be grossly inadequate, but you cannot set a bond that a person could not possibly come up with," Coffey told theGrio. "From everything we saw, George Zimmerman is broke. His wife doesn't work, they don't own a home [they were renting the townhome in the Retreat at Twin Lakes gated community where Martin was killed.] There's no reason to believe that he could even bond out with $150,000."

 He also corrects the common misconception that Zimmerman would only have to come up with 10 percent of the $150,000 in order to be released.  While that 10% is the premium you pay the surety company most defendants still have to "fully collateralize that $150,000, meaning that either George Zimmerman or his parents have to come up with a $150,000 second mortgage on their house or from a bank. The bonding company is not a charity. They stand to lose the money. They have more than just fugitive hunters [to track down a defendant who flees.] They get collateral up front."

 Despite all the criticism, Kendall Coffey believes that the prosecution did the right thing.  "The prosecutor knew exactly wheat he was doing," Coffey explained. 

Why Agreeing to Bail for George Zimmerman Could Make Sense

Kendall Coffey on his Spinning the Law LinkedIn Discussion Group

Kendall Coffey's book Spinning the Law

Perhaps the special prosecutor should consider agreeing to bond for George Zimmerman rather than contesting it. While aggressive prosecutors are rarely enthusiastic about backing off on anything, and with a charge of second degree murder they can argue that he should be denied pretrial release, respect for the defendant's presumption of innocence and the reality that he does not seem to be a flight risk or a danger to others in the community is compelling.

Most importantly, however, agreeing to a bond with appropriate conditions could be in the prosecution 's best interest. If the special prosecutor opposes any form of pretrial release for Zimmerman, the defense will insist on a proceeding called an Arthur hearing, which is a hearing that determines whether the state's case is strong enough to eliminate the defendant's right to be released on bond.

Even in murder cases, a defendant is eligible for bond though the state can challenge that right “where the proof is evident or the presumption great.” In applying the Florida Constitution's provision concerning entitlement to bail, courts find that the burden on prosecutors is to show proof even greater than the standard needed for conviction, i.e., beyond a reasonable doubt.

Prosecutors can use transcripts and affidavits in an Arthur hearing, but it is not clear that meeting this enhanced burden will be easy for the murder charge against Zimmerman. They would likely to show most if not all of their best evidence, something the probable cause affidavit used for the arrest explicitly and strategically avoided.

If they try and fail, they run the risk that the court could enter an order that details any and all perceived weaknesses in their case. No such order would be admissible in a court of law before a jury, but it could be a jarring setback in the court of public opinion. For example, in the Kobe Bryant case, the Colorado court 's skepticism about the case against him was evident in the order that followed the preliminary hearing (and the weekending case was ultimately abandoned by the prosecution).

There is no need for prosecutors to expose all of their theories and evidence at this stage, nor can they be assured a favorable outcome. The right approach for George Zimmerman is pretrial release, perhaps home detention and electronic monitoring, with appropriate conditions.

Agreeing to that proposal could be not only the right thing for Zimmerman, it could be the correct move for the prosecution as well.

Kendall Coffey Speaks about George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin Case

Kendall Coffey talks about the legal developments in the Trayvon Martin case and Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law with MSNBC:  

Kendall Coffey urges public to be patient in Martin Case

Vote-Rich Florida Can Be Kind to Riches

Kendall Coffey on his Spinning the Law Discussion Group

Kendall Coffey

To many Floridians, the previous GOP Presidential contests in smaller states were sideshows.

Of the early primaries, only Florida has the size and diversity to truly reflect our nation. Although the race here is too close to call presently, Florida’s pivotal role could be good news for Mitt Romney. In the Sunshine State, a candidate’s bags of money do not seem to create much political baggage. Just ask our current Governor, Rick Scott.

The political novice ran in 2010 with very controversial wealth – Scott’s former company paid $1.7 billion in fines and damages for health care fraud. But his massive waves of television ads derailed a powerhouse primary opponent as well as a formidable Democrat in the general election. Romney’s Bain Capital issues pale in comparison to Scott’s problems (like taking the 5th Amendment dozens of times).

Throughout Florida, television executives are smiling about the medium’s critical role in the Presidential sweepstakes. While more than $13 million in pro-Romney funds have already been spent or committed – and more may be on the way – the Gingrich PAC has reportedly amassed at least $5 million. Much of the battle for Florida could turn on whose Super PAC can beat up the other – a candidate’s ground game may have too much ground to cover before January 31st.

Even so, Romney’s organization may have secured a crucial advantage with absentee voters. Plenty of them received mailings from the Romney campaign in December. Gingrich, whose organizational fumbling cost him a place on Virginia’s ballot, apparently missed that key opportunity. Like early voting, absentees make decisions before Election Day. Even with his recent surge, Gingrich may be too late for many of these voters.

Thanks to inconclusive results in the earlier states, Florida is positioned to deliver a powerful verdict in what has been a topsy-turvy GOP contest. Debates can be important, but wealth – tainted or not – can be a candidate’s best friend in a state too large for retail politics and with ten media markets that can be fed only by massive television dollars.

The Modern Employment Dilemma – Zero Job Prospects or Zero Privacy

Kendall Coffey on his Spinning the Law LinkedIn Discussion group

Kendall Coffey

Companies that want to avoid and minimize criticism or high-­profile embarrassment from Facebook and other means are increasingly conducting more thorough background investigations to monitor their employees. As a result, employees should be aware that they may suffer consequences for publishing words they had deemed innocent or private.

While most established companies have a policy or an employee manual that specifically gives the employer full permission to review what its employees are browsing online, this is very different from investigating an employee’s personal Facebook account and penalizing him or her for that content.

Several states are now considering legislation to control this breach of privacy. In the meantime, everyone from student-athletes who risk losing scholarships to prospective employees who risk not getting hired must endure this advanced scrutiny. While companies and employers are jusifiably concerned with protecting their brand, entering someone’s Facebook account provides access to private communications that reveal information on the author’s personal thoughts and viewpoints.

The courts soon might have to rule on whether this is overreaching by employers. With private employers in an at-will state that can terminate an employee for any reason besides an illegal one of discrimination, it is difficult to prevail in a legal challenge, but public employers are subject to a number of Constitutional provisions.

Student-athletes have a stronger position, for example, than a prison guard or law enforcement official because society demands a more exacting scrutiny in certain areas of employment where public security and pubic interest are an issue.

Unless legislation is passed to protect student-athletes and employees from their respective universities and employers, this society will inevitably become one in which public and private information mesh until the lines between them are indistinguishable, bringing us closer to Orwell’s prophetic '1984' state.