Robert, do you think they made this stupid decision with the donated money because of bad counsel?
Would this have happened with the original counsel?
Obviously its just conjecture but I'm curious what you think.
ZRX1200 wrote:
If I understand correctly, I think you are asking: Whether the two attorneys, who represented Z before O'mara took over, advised hiding of the money and perjury? If so, no. I do not think they had anything at all to due with any of this.
If I remember the sequence of events accurately, the bond hearing and Z's release came before the money was revealed. In fact, O'mara was the one who went public and formally notified the court of the money on Z's behalf. This leads me to believe he truly didn't know.
If O'mara did know of the money before the hearing, he would have very highly likely used the existence of the money, among other arguments, to increase Z's chance of bond being sett:
"Your Honor, my client has $100k in liquid cash and could have left the country with the money anytime he wanted to. But, he chose to do the right thing. Instead of fleeing or hiding himself, he openly disclosed the existence of the money. This shows there is little risk he would flee. if that was his plan, he would be long gone by now. And, I remind the court that Z gave the money to me and it is sitting in my trust account. He gave up control of that money to me. That shows his integrity. He deserves bail!". Pretty convincing argument in my opinion...
O'mara's reputation is so clean and his demeanor has been so solid, I would be utterly and totally shocked if he was in any way complicit. He's a lawyers' lawyer. The kind of lawyer another lawyer would hire for representation. And, it didn't hurt that the Judge stated on the record at the revocation hearing that he didn't think O'mara had anything to do with it.
So, to sum all this up: IMO, none of the attorneys knew anything about the money or knew of any perjury until well after the fact.
Now, who is to blame? Both Z and his wife. I haven't seen the court transcript anywhere, but it appears she lied under oath and Z may have too- perhaps even just by omission. Either way, Z is f'd- even if he didn't know of the money before the hearing (although it is alleged he did). His integrity is highly likely shot. His wife killed any suggestion of her own integrity. The chance of him getting the charge dismissed under the statute is very low. It would have been a tough call to make as a Judge without the specter of the new integrity issue. Now, I have real serious doubt this case will be dismissed.
Remember that despite everything, the Judge has to run for re-election every six (6) years. Opportunists will line up for miles to challenge him. That is what happened to the Chief Judge from the Anthony trial. I hope this doesn't influence Z's Judge's decision in any possible way at all, but that is just contrary to human nature.
Edited by user
14 years ago |
Reason: Not specified
