Actually not a privilege but a right rooted in English law
and carried over to US constitutional law regarding those accused of crime. He has the right to a speedy trial heard by a jury of his peers. Bail cannot be excessive. Bail can be denied or revoked at state level for reasons of public interest. Three reasons could be:
1. Public safety...the defendant has a past history of violence and would continue to be a threat.
2. Defendant does not reside in that state
3. Defendant has a history of flight...jumping bail, that is.
You could probably use #1 if you could show Zimmerman to have already left a trail of violence in his wake prior to shooting Martin. # 2 and 3 do not apply.
As for the "surprise" money, this was known weeks ago and even discussed here. As I recall, the question centered around the intended use for the defense fund and whether or not Zimmerman had discretionary access to it. If it was for legal defense only, that means to defray attorney fees and not for bail money. If that's truly the case, Zimmerman's claim of net worth is likely more accurate. Being that we require proof of guilt to enact a judgment against someone, I'd be willing to listen to Zimmerman without prejudice about these financial details as well. He'd be free on bail unless substantial proof of fraud with malicious intent could be shown.
We have adequate means to monitor his movements already. With so many criminals out on the streets due to faulty trials, lack of evidence, etc., I'd be hard pressed to put Zimmerman in the slammer other than to protect him from the harm that could be inflicted on him by others prior to trial. From what I've been able to read, I'd have no fear if Zimmerman and I were the only two people sharing an elevator ride.
Actually, I think that I would be fully capable of sitting on the jury at his trial and be fair to both him and the deceased Martin but I'd also fear the backlash of a decision that some didn't consider as severe enough.
Was this reply helpful? (0) (0)