Zimmerman`s Lawyers Call It Quits-`He`s Gone AWOL`

Submitted by: kitteh9lives 5 years ago in Games
video platformvideo managementvideo solutionsvideo playervideo platformvideo managementvideo solutionsvideo player
Zimmerman"s lawyers have withdrawn from the case because they have lost contact with Zimmerman. Story in credits link
There are 88 comments:
Male 2,344
Zimmerman finally admitted to himself that he murdered an unarmed kid and lost it...tha tis the headline I hope to see out of this.
0
Reply
Male 461
@patchgrabber "Technically it would be libel, but in either event you`re correct. To be actually found guilty of either of them is nigh impossible, since you have to prove that the other person KNEW it was a lie when they said it."

Actually almost the opposite. You can be found guilty of libel if you make a statement about someone in the form of a fact when you do not have sufficient proof of that fact. i.e. passing rumors.

Typically the test then moves to how would the average person on the street interpret any statement or remark and was it damaging to the individual.

There is no defense against libel in saying Í thought it was true. If you make a statement of fact in writing the responsibility is on you to research that fact adequately.

On the internet the issue typically rest around the owner/operator of forums and areas with public comment and the moderation or censorship of potentially defaming statements on them. This is p
0
Reply
Male 5,811
[quote]Individuals on the internet cannot be accused of slander in the legal sense of the word.[/quote]
Technically it would be libel, but in either event you`re correct. To be actually found guilty of either of them is nigh impossible, since you have to prove that the other person KNEW it was a lie when they said it.
0
Reply
Male 599
@LillianDulci The media, as far as I know, has not slandered Trayvon. Individuals on the internet cannot be accused of slander in the legal sense of the word.
0
Reply
Male 40,752
@LillianDulci: WHO, anywhere, has "slandered" Saint Trayvon?

The MSM tried to hide the truth about him, is telling the truth "slander" these days?
0
Reply
Male 40,752
Lets see: Hollywood types are Tweeting his "address"...
News stations are "editing" 911 tapes to make him sound like a racist...
A violent Black Rights group has a "dead or alive" bounty on him...
The "Race Baiters" have been calling for "Justice... or Else!" for some time now...

IS there a law that says he MUST stay in contact with the police? No? Well then, what has he done wrong?

I`m glad few IABers (so far) are suggesting that if he hides it means he`s guilty. It means there`s a "Dead Or Alive" bounty on his head! Pre-trial!

Remember the Duke Lacross Team? Same deal.
0
Reply
Female 2,674
ivran, are you calling for an apology from all the people who have slandered Trayvon too?
0
Reply
Male 1,510

I bet the New Black Panthers have him right now. They are probably beheading him (because they are Islamic organization)
0
Reply
Male 416
I am a strong supporter of having this man arrested and prosecuted for the alleged crime. I`m not saying that he is guilty, but there does appear to be enough to reasonable try him. He was instructed (though not `ordered`) not to pursue Martin; he did and some sort of scuffle occurred which resulted in Martin`s death at his hands. He should not be tried in a court of public opinion, but his actions directly led to the death of a person and it should be decided in a court of law.

Having said that, if any harm does come to him - by his own hand or through vigilantism - I would like to see the instigators (such as the NBPs) investigated and prosecuted, as well.

It is imperative that we live in a civil society that adheres to reasonable laws, to the best of our ability. Vigilantism of any sort - by Zimmermand or the NBPs or any other actors (including law enforcement officers - should not be tolerated. Period.
0
Reply
Male 599
@patchgrabber Yea, it`s going to happen at 6pm.
0
Reply
Male 2,694
Weather he`s guilty or innocent there are a lot of angry people out there who could and would do him harm. I don`t see a problem with making myself scarce under these circumstances. Just be there to face the music if you`re called upon.
0
Reply
Male 599
@patchgrabber I`ve read that the prosecutor will call for his arrest later today.

Also, is Z-Booty actually `missing` or is he just not willing to communicate with anybody? The two are different things. If he`s missing, I think it`s only fair to investigate the people who have illegally put a bounty on his head and got away with it(ironic, isn`t it?). I do think it`s a great possibility that a suicide is on the horizon, which in my opinion, should warrant an apology by the news media who has done nothing but slander this, as of right now, innocent man. They can hate on him all he wants if he gets convicted, but he has done nothing to put himself in front of the media, in fact, he has been avoiding it.
0
Reply
Male 1,399
I`d hide too.

If I had an illegal bounty on my life, a political prosecutor after me (without a grand jury, hmm...) and every know-nothing lefty wanting to hang me before I even see a courtroom...bet your ass I`d hide.
0
Reply
Male 25,416
What you misplaced him.... Hes probably in Mexico by now.. everyone flees to mexico dont they
0
Reply
Male 5,811
Was he issued a summons in lieu of arrest? An arrest requires fingerprinting, booking etc.
0
Reply
Male 802
No idea if the guy is guilty of some crime or not, but didn`t he have a bounty put on his head? I`d be gone too if I was in his shoes. This is not surprising in the least.
0
Reply
Male 2,384
running away like a guilty bitch
0
Reply
Male 57
You are right Pink. Our system is so convoluted that the actual meaning of something has no bearing.
0
Reply
Male 1,239
I think we are discussing different terms of arrest. The word itself by definition is exactly as you say. To be held still. In essence detained is arrested but it becomes relevant when an arrest looks bad on a record whereas being detained isn`t even in the record.
0
Reply
Male 1,239
An example is the Kony guy who was detained but not arrested.
0
Reply
Male 1,239
[quote]It boils down to two things. Either a citizen is free to go, or they are detained which constitutes being under arrest.[/quote]

Being detained is not synonymous with arrest. I will concede that cuffing is always indicative of an arrest by action. However, it does not always stick as an arrest in the books because of mistakes.
0
Reply
Male 57
Right, once in court everything gets twisted. The difference in a felony and expungement here in the states usually depends on the accused ability to obtain large enough sums to pay good lawyers and fines.
0
Reply
Male 926
From Harris v. New York

"Miranda barred the prosecution from making its case with statements of an accused made while in custody prior to having or effectively waiving counsel. It does not follow from Miranda that evidence inadmissible against an accused in the prosecution`s case in chief is barred for all purposes, provided of course that the trustworthiness of the evidence satisfies legal standards."
0
Reply
Male 926
A key outcome of the Cadder Case was that "the ruling states that confessions obtained by the police cannot be used as evidence at a trial, unless the suspect was allowed legal advice from a solicitor beforehand." (from the above link).

Thats interesting. When Miranda first came out I believe in 1967, the rule was similar. But the courts worried that the Miranda rule would be overly broad and affect police investigations in ways not intended by the Miranda Court. The impeachment exception has no bearing on a case if the defendant does not testify, which is why someone who is guilty is highly advised not to take the stand. When they do, it`s all fair game.
0
Reply
Male 926
"You state that "A formal arrest is normally starts with a formal explanation to the detainee" yet in the "procedural guideline" guideline I posted it states "the detention of a person need not be accompanied by formal words of arrest or a station house booking to constitute an arrest." Slightly conflicting."

That is absolutely correct. Procedurally. However, pertaining to the admissibility of evidence, the formalities of the arrest have to be presented to the detainee (i.e., Miranda Warnings). As far as the present sense impression of the detainee, I agree, that an arrest and a detention are exactly the same. But how the courts see it, they are separate.
0
Reply
Male 57
All I am saying is if a person is detained they are under arrest, they may not have charges filed and be released soon after but they were still under arrest.
0
Reply
Male 57
@maddux32 You state that "A formal arrest is normally starts with a formal explanation to the detainee" yet in the "procedural guideline" guideline I posted it states "the detention of a person need not be accompanied by formal words of arrest or a station house booking to constitute an arrest." Slightly conflicting.
0
Reply
Male 39,921

MacGuffin, [quote]"And to think you`ve got the cheek to call me a troll" [/quote]
When did I call you a `troll` ?

Of course, english is my second language, I`m actually fluent in red-neck, being just a backwards american and not oh-so sophisticated like you european types. But over here `expert` and `troll` have differant meaning. Perhaps you could explain to me the correct usage. I`m sure you`re an expert on that as well.
0
Reply
Female 2,602
A key outcome of the Cadder Case was that "the ruling states that confessions obtained by the police cannot be used as evidence at a trial, unless the suspect was allowed legal advice from a solicitor beforehand." (from the above link).

I feel a lot safer knowing I have that kind of protection against prosecutorial misconduct. :\
0
Reply
Female 2,602
>>>Even with Miranda, if the defendant takes the stand, anything said in the interrogation room, or in any situation where Miranda would be a valid defense, can be used against him for impeachment purposes. <<<

That`s worrying.

By comparison, in the UK, all police interviews are tape recorded, with a copy immediately given to the arrested person afterwards.

There was also a relevant case in Scotland recently (which has its own law, separate from England), called the Cadder Case, whereby a detainee who`d been questioned without a lawyer present had their conviction quashed.

...
0
Reply
Male 926
@Brodie

What you just listed was a procedural guideline for how an arrest can occur. However, for Miranda purposes, their has to be a distinguishing period as to when the detention has turned into an arrest. For legal purposes, and heavily weighing on the evidence record, this is crucial. Generally a detention occurs when a reasonable person feel they are not free to leave, be it from physical detention or a showing of authority. A formal arrest is normally starts with a formal explanation to the detainee that they are being arrested, or upon a showing of all the circumstances that for all intents and purposes, the suspect has been arrested.
0
Reply
Male 57
It boils down to two things. Either a citizen is free to go, or they are detained which constitutes being under arrest.
0
Reply
Male 57
An arrest may occur (1) by the touching or putting hands on the arrestee; (2) by any act that indicates an intention to take the arrestee into custody and that subjects the arrestee to the actual control and will of the person making the arrest; or (3) by the consent of the person to be arrested. There is no arrest where there is no restraint, and the restraint must be under real or pretended legal authority. However, the detention of a person need not be accompanied by formal words of arrest or a station house booking to constitute an arrest.
0
Reply
Male 57
"A seizure or forcible restraint; an exercise of the power to deprive a person of his or her liberty; the taking or keeping of a person in custody by legal authority, especially, in response to a criminal charge." This states "especially" not "only" in response to a criminal charge.
0
Reply
Male 926
Pinkrhoid is absolutely correct. There is a difference between being detained and formally arrested.
0
Reply
Male 1,239
Not saying Z wasn`t arrested btw, just that it isn`t a set rule that cuffed = arrest.
0
Reply
Male 1,239
[quote]Any time you are detained by the police with force and or restraint is an arrest.[/quote]

Again, this isn`t wholly right. I have been cuffed and run in for mistaken identity and later released. No arrest to speak of. I encourage you to look it up. If a cop has even a suspicion you could be violent or a flight risk he may cuff you. Detainment is not arrest and neither is cuffing.
0
Reply
Male 926
Even with Miranda, if the defendant takes the stand, anything said in the interrogation room, or in any situation where Miranda would be a valid defense, can be used against him for impeachment purposes.
0
Reply
Male 1,239
[quote]You guise know what`s more annoying that people arguing on the internet? When its actually not 12 year old kids, but rather adults acting like 12 year olds.[/quote]

For the most part this has remained pretty calm, better than I`ve seen before, and a discussion is not an argument. Your comment is as childish as the few others you are likely complaining about.
0
Reply
Male 68
"A: If he`s guilty he`d want to escape prosecution, so run.
B: If he`s innocent there`s no way he is NOT going to jail because of the media hooplah, so again, run.
&
3: It won`t make his prison sentance any longer by trying to run before arrest so he has nothing to lose by trying... so run."

4. Running is good for the cardiovascular system....so run.
0
Reply
Male 926
@Macguffin

Very worrying. Basically, "in the interests of justice" the trial judge can do whatever he wants and dare anyone who doesn`t like it to appeal. The policy behind the emergency exceptions is supposed to be in the interest of public safety, for example, read New York v. Quarles since your researching case law.

"We conclude that the need for answers to questions in a situation posing a threat to the public safety outweighs the need for the prophylactic rule protecting the fifth amendment.
"We do not believe that Miranda requires application in a situation where police officers ask questions reasonably prompted by a concern for the public safety."
0
Reply
Male 57
He was arrested just not charged. Any time you are detained by the police with force and or restraint is an arrest.
0
Reply
Male 598
Zimmerman just used their legal council and doesnt need a lawyer at this time since hes not charged with anything. THey said they would still represent him if he needed it, especially because he has a strong case, but he doesnt right now, so who f`ing cares.
0
Reply
Male 1,239
Ya, Miranda is only valid on things said to police after arrest. If you volunteer info before they`ve said anything about detainment or arrest it`s fair game I believe. Otherwise they`d have to miranda any and all people they ever talk to as any could self incriminate at any time even if they aren`t a suspect. They use this fact to screw people too sometimes.
0
Reply
Female 2,602
[quote]maddux32: we never said anything about Miranda rights and Zimmerman in the same sentence...

Holy crap. Moron.[/quote]
I brought up Miranda rights, in the context of being handcuffed and not realising you weren`t under arrest.
0
Reply
Female 2,602
[quote]@Macguffin

There are four exceptions to Miranda v. Arizona, and it is entirely possible to convicted based on statements made to police before receiving Miranda warnings.

1. Impeachment
2. Waiver
3. Booking Info
4. Emergency [/quote]

Worrying stuff, eh? Especially number 4, which is open to wide misinterpretation.
0
Reply
Male 1,832
You guise know what`s more annoying that people arguing on the internet? When its actually not 12 year old kids, but rather adults acting like 12 year olds.
0
Reply
Female 2,602
[quote]Unlike some others here, I`m forgiving (+forgetting) MacGuffin`s mistake. I looked it up after I said what I said and noticed the differing laws between the UK and the USA. It`s an honest mistake. Idk why you guys keep bothering her about it :|[/quote]

Thanks, Lillian.
0
Reply
Male 926
@Macguffin

There are four exceptions to Miranda v. Arizona, and it is entirely possible to convicted based on statements made to police before receiving Miranda warnings.

1. Impeachment
2. Waiver
3. Booking Info
4. Emergency
0
Reply
Female 2,602
[quote]Well, a lot of it isn`t that they are for it or willing but too damn stupid to see it happening. They`ve become sloths, loathe to do anything that interferes with their cozy daily lives. If something is unpleasant, ignore it or make excuses so you can move on and not care. They are lobsters in a pot of once cold water and they don`t feel it getting hotter. Not all of us though, and those of us who are aware are powerless to stop it unless people wake up.[/quote]

Actually, the more I read about the way the US treats its own citizens, I don`t think stupidity of the victims is the reason that those who abuse get away with it.

IMO, the US authorities get away with abusing people`s rights, and re-inventing the law every five minutes to suit themselves, because the silent majority, whilst occasionally appalled by isolated cases like this one, simply don`t have the imaginative capacity to realise that they themselves could be the next victim.
0
Reply
Female 2,674
Unlike some others here, I`m forgiving (+forgetting) MacGuffin`s mistake. I looked it up after I said what I said and noticed the differing laws between the UK and the USA. It`s an honest mistake. Idk why you guys keep bothering her about it :|
0
Reply
Male 1,239
didn`t end the quote. Oops.
0
Reply
Male 926
Don`t hate on MacGuffin because she can speak intelligently about things that are not in her backyard. If she`s too much for you, of you feel intimidated by her, don`t resort to, "Oh, here comes the expert again...Mrs. Freaking Know it all." Weaksauce.
0
Reply
Female 2,602
[quote]Oh MacGuffin, is there *any* aspect of American life or society on which you are not a world-renowned expert?

I suppose living in your flawless European Utopia leaves you plenty of time to study the faults of the US. We`re just glad you`re here to disseminate your knowledge and blunt wisdom![/quote]

I`m pretty sure I made clear I wasn`t an expert below, Frank, but I guess you just read what you want to read, exactly like Gerry.
0
Reply
Male 1,239
[quote]It never ceases to amaze me just how many rights American civilians appear to have willingly handed over or had forcibly taken from them by those meant to protect them.[quote]

Well, a lot of it isn`t that they are for it or willing but too damn stupid to see it happening. They`ve become sloths, loathe to do anything that interferes with their cozy daily lives. If something is unpleasant, ignore it or make excuses so you can move on and not care. They are lobsters in a pot of once cold water and they don`t feel it getting hotter. Not all of us though, and those of us who are aware are powerless to stop it unless people wake up.
0
Reply
Male 3,745
maddux32: we never said anything about Miranda rights and Zimmerman in the same sentence...

Holy crap. Moron.
0
Reply
Female 2,602
[quote]@ MacGuffin - Why so mad? I said you were an `expert`.

Geezsh! You can`t pay some people a compliment.[/quote]

And to think you`ve got the cheek to call me a troll (though I do realise that, for some people on IAB, yourself included, "troll" = "person that has merely beaten me in an argument").

I`ll put you in my `not worth responding to` pile from now on.
0
Reply
Male 926
Miranda is still alive and well. And what violation of Miranda are you referring to? As far as I know, he was questioned voluntarily, and not charged. He lawyered up, and ignored the advice of his lawyers. By the way, he had the worst defense attorneys anyone could ever ask for, and good luck to them getting clients ever again. Holy crap. Morons.
0
Reply
Female 2,602
[quote]MacGuffin: yup. there used to be a day and age when if you weren`t mirandized then when you went to court nobody could touch you...wonder if that still works...also if you asked to have your arresting officer drug tested they HAD to test him/her. i miss those days...[/quote]

As distasteful as it is when apparently genuine criminals go free when the police don`t do their jobs properly (such as not remembering to give a Miranda warning prior to questioning after arrest), it`s little rules like those that should protect ordinary people from tyranny.
0
Reply
Male 39,921

@ MacGuffin - Why so mad? I said you were an `expert`.

Geezsh! You can`t pay some people a compliment.
0
Reply
Male 2,669
Oh MacGuffin, is there *any* aspect of American life or society on which you are not a world-renowned expert?

I suppose living in your flawless European Utopia leaves you plenty of time to study the faults of the US. We`re just glad you`re here to disseminate your knowledge and blunt wisdom!
0
Reply
Female 2,602
[quote]Entirely incorrect. Cuffs are used in detaining. Often people are detained this way for questioning and it isn`t until much later they decide whether they have what it takes to make an arrest.[/quote]

You`re right - I`ve just been checking my facts (see below). This wouldn`t happen in the UK, though, I assure you. It never ceases to amaze me just how many rights American civilians appear to have willingly handed over or had forcibly taken from them by those meant to protect them.
0
Reply
Male 3,745
MacGuffin: yup. there used to be a day and age when if you weren`t mirandized then when you went to court nobody could touch you...wonder if that still works...also if you asked to have your arresting officer drug tested they HAD to test him/her. i miss those days...
0
Reply
Female 2,602
[quote]You guys leave MacGuffin alone. I for one am glad to have an expert on everything here to clarify these things for us. [/quote]

At least I differentiate between opinion and independently-verifiable facts, Gerry. And, unlike you, I don`t take refuge in sarcasm or denial when other people point out any hypcocrisy or inconsistency in anything I`ve said.
0
Reply
Male 3,445
Zimmerman is either having some sort of mental breakdown or he was off to start with. He`s obviously alienated his lawyers by disappearing, and he even called Sean Hannity for advice. Now he`s set up his own web site with an American flag background image, with a paypal link to support his legal defense.
0
Reply
Female 2,602
Still, in a country that sanctions torture and rendition of civilians at government level, nothing surprises me any more about just how distorted a version of justice exists in the US.
0
Reply
Female 2,602
>>>MacGuffin: im going to point out that you live in the UK and we live in the States. things here are different from things there.<<<

Actually, you`re right. I`m not an expert in either jurisdiction (though I have at least worked in the UK police service, not as an officer).

I`ve just been reading up on some case law and news stories, though, and it looks like yet another civil right you guys have handed over to the boys in blue. I found cases of people being convicted based on statements they made after being handcuffed, despite not being given Miranda warnings, and other cases where `consent` to search was apparently given by a handcuffed, `un-arrested` man, without probable cause for the search

...
0
Reply
Male 1,239
[quote]The Washington Post is now reporting that the special prosecutor will file charges against George Zimmerman.[/quote]

I would think so. Despite having, imo, a reason to run, (like I said before dead either way) running is almost as good as admitting guilt. Assuming he ran, I think it`s far more likely someone made some money on the bounty on his head or flat out murdered him.
0
Reply
Male 1,122
Damnit stupid off whitey...you`re messin up our system.
You don`t run away...you pay the judge. Sheesh.
0
Reply
Male 3,445
The Washington Post is now reporting that the special prosecutor will file charges against George Zimmerman.
0
Reply
Male 1,239
[quote]you don`t wear cuffs when accompanying the police, unless you`re under arrest or your cop boyfriend is kinky.[/quote]

Entirely incorrect. Cuffs are used in detaining. Often people are detained this way for questioning and it isn`t until much later they decide whether they have what it takes to make an arrest. Being cuffed, taken in, or even held for awhile does not constitute arrest. As for Z, I don`t know if his was an arrest or a detainment. What you linked appears to be a police report, and on its own does not indicate arrest.
0
Reply
Male 39,921

You guys leave MacGuffin alone. I for one am glad to have an expert on everything here to clarify these things for us.
0
Reply
Male 1,377
The use handcuffs by a Police Officer is covered in section 117 of the Police and criminal evidence act, the legislation that covers the use of force by a Police Officer.

This legislation applies only to Police Officers in the course of their lawful duty.

If an officer feels that its necessary to place handcuffs onto someone in order to search them then this would be seen as a lawful use of force.

Its up to the individual officer to justify their actions and use of force but I would suggest that the use of handcuffs was to prevent the disposal of evidence, i.e. any drugs that they thought you may have been carrying.

So yes in the U.S.A. you can be put in cuffs but not be under arrest.
0
Reply
Male 3,745
MacGuffin: im going to point out that you live in the UK and we live in the States. things here are different from things there.
0
Reply
Male 1,239
His lawyers were looking for a way out anyways. Guilty or innocent anyone helping this guy is in real danger. Even if he is innocent and a mountain of evidence supported it no one against him would blink at it and he`d be dead as soon as he was spotted in the outside world. Dead in prison guilty, dead outside prison innocent, what`s left but to try and run?
0
Reply
Female 2,602
[quote]MacGuffin: i`ve been in cuffs without having been arrested...they do it for their own protection.[/quote]
If any officer tries to pull that on you and you let them, you`re a fool. Unless you`re under arrest, the police are not allowed to restrain you.
0
Reply
Female 2,602
>>>No, he was not arrested. He was taken in for questioning and released. He wasn`t locked in a jail cell with bail and held until trial or anything like he should have been.<<<

I`m sorry, but he *was* arrested. You know those cuffs he was wearing?, they don`t put them on just for Ride Alongs. This is apparently his arrest report, though I can`t find it referenced by any mainstream media outlet, so I can`t confirm if it`s real. My point remains, though: you don`t wear cuffs when accompanying the police, unless you`re under arrest or your cop boyfriend is kinky.
0
Reply
Male 3,745
MacGuffin: i`ve been in cuffs without having been arrested...they do it for their own protection.
0
Reply
Female 2,602
[quote]It won`t make his prison sentance any longer by trying to run before arrest so he has nothing to lose by trying.[/quote]
No, but it would make the time he serves far less `pleasant`. Once identified as having an escapee history, in most prisons there`s no scope for minimum security, ever, no matter how much of an over-privileged, white-collared, well-behaved inmate you later prove to be.
0
Reply
Female 1,566
I don`t even think he`s running, I think he`s suicidal. He doesn`t mean to come back, his life is over either way, he`s acknowledged it himself.
0
Reply
Female 2,674
No, he was not arrested. He was taken in for questioning and released. He wasn`t locked in a jail cell with bail and held until trial or anything like he should have been.
0
Reply
Male 39,921

If I were him, I would totally run for it. It is the only logical response.

A: If he`s guilty he`d want to escape prosecution, so run.
B: If he`s innocent there`s no way he is NOT going to jail because of the media hooplah, so again, run.
&
3: It won`t make his prison sentance any longer by trying to run before arrest so he has nothing to lose by trying... so run.

0
Reply
Male 35
either ran, or someone did something bad to him. Votes on as to which.
0
Reply
Female 2,602
[quote]And this is why he should have been arrested.[/quote]
He was arrested. This is why he should have been charged. Not that it would have made much difference in Florida - look at the debacle surrounding Casey Anthony. We`ve got our faults too, but you simply wouldn`t get the sort of trial by media and leaking of evidence by so-called law enforcement personnel that you saw in that case over here. I mean, the media had actual hidden camera footage of her talking to FBI officers whilst in custody, before the trial, FFS. If that`s not blatant Contempt of Court, I don`t know what is.
0
Reply
Female 2,674
And this is why he should have been arrested.
0
Reply
Female 2,602
I saw this on the BBC. Don`t get me wrong, I fully hope that Zimmerman is brought before a court to be tried for this alleged crime. However I feel about him personally, though, I think it`s appalling of any lawyer to drop a client like this. Especially when you hold a press conference afterwards to talk about your decision in a case that may well soon be sub judice. I think they should be called before their Bar for this, and thrown out of the profession.
0
Reply
Male 3,745
looks like we`ve got a runner...
0
Reply
Female 8,043
Link: Zimmerman`s Lawyers Call It Quits-`He`s Gone AWOL` [Rate Link] - Zimmerman`s lawyers have withdrawn from the case because they have lost contact with Zimmerman. Story in credits link
0
Reply