http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/30/us/florida-zimmerman-judge/index.html

“The move came one day after a Florida appeals court granted Zimmerman’s request for a new judge, saying the original judge’s remarks put Zimmerman in reasonable fear of an unfair trial.”

First, let’s review what actually happened.  After Zimmerman was found out to be lying to the court about monetary funds for bail, the judge remarked that Zimmerman would have run to an undisclosed location and he and his wife would be free to do as they pleased.  He also made some disparaging accusations, though veiled, through his speech to Zimmerman who was returned to jail until making the million dollar bail that Judge Lester ordered paid by putting up at least $100,000.  He made remarks that Zimmerman was flouting the system and using it at every turn to manipulate his own future.  So pretty much, failing to be remarkably suitable by not making such comments, Judge Lester has been removed because he failed to demonstrate a fair treatment of Zimmerman.  Unfortunately, such a decision is correct, however…I doubt Mr. Zimmerman will be given the ammunition to make it another point of interested via his next judge, who should be smart enough not to speak out of line or appear to be unfair in his remarks.   What was so unfair about it?  Why not continue with this judge?

If the defense would have not moved to have Lester removed, a mistrial would have occurred due to the judge’s impartial comments in court.  Also note that when a judge makes a comment that alludes to or provides a view that the defendant in any criminal trial is already guilty, they have violated the office they serve in because a judge should be impartial throughout the trial.  Concurrent media attention of the comments thrust the idea that Lester may not have offered a fair trial to Zimmerman violates his Constitutional right to one.  It doesn’t mean Lester wasn’t a good judge in his past, but his remarks reflected that his negative opinion of the alleged shooter of Trayvon Martin were not impartial but partial to his guilt.  Sometimes, laws like this can be frustrating, especially for family members of the victim.  At these times, it appears that unfair details of the case are terribly awry, but they actually aren’t.  Zimmerman does deserve to have a fair trial just like anyone else, however guilty he seems to rest of us.  I am surprised that the defense team didn’t ask for a venue change as well, but finding people who haven’t heard of the case is going to be relatively small no matter where it is held.  Yet, not surprisingly, there are people out of touch with media streamed news that may or may not have informed them of the teen’s untimely death after an illegal pursuit.  But again, unfortunately, the right to a fair trial also involves trusting a jury that may or may not agree with those on the outside looking in is a strange variable to the chance of a guilty verdict.  Unfair?  Perhaps, but laws are made in order to protect the interests of the public as well as the accused that require certain details to remain impartial and neutral in order to achieve an accurate and fair trial chance.  Lester clearly did not demonstrate his ability to be that neutral, unaffected, impartial judge needed to solidify any chance of Zimmerman getting a fair trial or justice for Martin and Martin’s family.  It is interesting that law can be a double edged blade at points like this and that a young man, Trayvon Martin, is dead.

 

 

Advertisements