Zimmerman waives immunity hearing in Martin's slaying
SANFORD — The former neighborhood watch leader charged with fatally shooting a Florida teenager told a judge on Tuesday that he agrees with his defense attorneys' decision not to seek an immunity hearing under the state's “Stand Your Ground” self-defense law.
Under questioning from Circuit Judge Debra Nelson, George Zimmerman repeatedly said “yes” to a series of questions asking if he was aware he was giving up the right to a hearing before his second-degree murder trial in June. A judge would have sole discretion in an immunity hearing to decide if Zimmerman is exempt from culpability in the shooting. A jury would make the determination in the murder trial.
“After consultation with my counsel, yes, your honor,” Zimmerman said.
The judge had set aside two weeks at the end of April for an immunity hearing should Zimmerman want one. Zimmerman's defense attorney, Mark O'Mara, told Nelson during a hearing in March that he wouldn't need those days. Prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda filed a motion last week asking that Zimmerman make clear his intentions on whether he wanted the hearing.
O'Mara told the judge there was nothing in the law that required the immunity hearing take place before Zimmerman's trial and that it could be requested after prosecutors have presented their case.
“We'd much rather have the jury address the issue of criminal liability or lack thereof,” O'Mara said.
Zimmerman has pleaded not guilty, claiming self-defense. Martin was fatally shot in February 2012 during a fight with Zimmerman in a Sanford gated community.
O'Mara wanted the court to unseal details of a civil settlement Martin's parents received from Zimmerman's homeowners association. O'Mara contended the settlement could influence the testimony of Martin's parents, if they are called as witnesses.
The judge said defense attorneys and prosecutors could see full copies of the settlement but that the public would only be able to see a version from which some information has been removed.
Daryl Parks, one of the Martin family's attorneys, said afterward that any attempt by the defense to use information from the recent civil settlement was “smoke and mirrors.”
“It is just wrong to suggest that Tracy Martin and Sybrina Fulton wanted their son to be killed so they could get a confidential financial settlement,” he said. “It is just so unfair to this family.”
O'Mara denied he was making that suggestion, but said anything that goes toward witness bias should be available for a jury to explore during trial to decide whether those testifying are credible.
Nelson rejected a request by O'Mara to find fault with prosecutors for what the defense attorney described as violations in providing discovery evidence to them. O'Mara said that prosecutors' failure to disclose evidence in a timely manner had cost his team “hours and hours of work.”
The judge said she would hold a hearing after the trial to determine if prosecutors should have to pay for some costs that O'Mara said he incurred because of the alleged discovery problems.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Parks threatened by dispute over renewal
- Senate foils phone spies in close vote
- Michigan woman marks 116th birthday
- Texas, Oklahoma residents urged to flee flooding
- Pipeline didn’t have shut-off valve
- Why FedEx truck slammed into bus in Calif. in fatal crash still unknown year later
- Ex-Va. lawmaker plans to wed teen in sex scandal
- Clinton Foundation reports as much as $26.4M in previously undisclosed payments
- Police kill suspect in fatal shootings of Missouri woman, son
- Harvey Girls recognized for role in history of West
- Congress passes short-term fix for highways program