The state's complaint at the bond revocation hearing was not that Zimmerman omitted something from his testimony, but that he didn't correct his wife's testimony after she testified they had no other assets they could easily liquidate to make bond, that she didn't know how much money “currently” was in the website account, and could not estimate how much had been raised by the website in total. There was also argument by his lawyer based on the testimony of his relatives that Zimmerman and his wife had no money to post a bond, and the family was trying to raise money. There was no testimony by Zimmerman about money at his bond hearing. He took the stand only to state an apology to the Martins and the subject of money never came up during his testimony – not even on cross-examination by the prosecutor.

There was no illegal activity discussed in the taped jail conversations submitted to the Court at the June 1 hearing. The funds were lawfully acquire. There was nothing illegal in Zimmerman’s instructions to his wife to transfer funds from one account to another or to disperse the funds. He had every right to put the money to whatever use he wanted. He had even stated on his short-lived website that he would make the final decisions as to how to spend the money.

The state argued, and the Judge agreed, that Zimmerman’s silence at the bond hearing, given his wife’s testimony and lawyer’s arguments, was deceitful. His lawyer has since said that his client should have disclosed the funds raised by his website, and that his failure to do so was the product of his “fear, mistrust and confusion.”

I don’t think O’Mara means his client should have disclosed the funds directly to the court at the hearing, but rather, he should have disclosed the amount of funds to him, either before the hearing or after his wife’s testimony at the hearing. Zimmerman, who had exercised his right to remain silent at the bond hearing except for the specific and limited purpose of issuing an apology to the Martin family, had no duty to speak up and correct his wife's testimony or lawyer’s argument at the hearing.

Defendants speak through their lawyers in court. They don't usually interrupt them to tell them they are wrong or address the judge directly to provide different information. Any defendant, especially one in a case where the proceedings are being televised nationally, might be hesitant to speak up if not being directly addressed by his lawyer or the Judge, let alone speak up to contradict his lawyer. Defendants presume their lawyers know what they are doing. Zimmerman knew his lawyer had talked to his wife and other family members and was going to call them as witnesses. Why would he think his wife’s testimony presented a problem, even on the issue of website funds, unless after she was was cross-examined, his lawyer leaned over and asked him about it? Even if O’Mara didn’t know before the hearing that some money had been collected from the website, surely he knew after the cross-examination of Shellie Zimmerman, since she testified to them and said her brother-in-law would know how much had been collected. All he had to do was ask Zimmerman the same question the prosecutor asked his wife: Do you know how much money was collected or is in the account?

Going back to O’Mara's press release stating his client now knows he was wrong not to disclose the funds and that his failure to disclose them were the product of his “fear, confusion and mistrust,” let’s try and break that down.

The fear is evident by the use of shorthand (not coded language) in the phone calls between George Zimmerman and his wife in the week prior to the bond hearing, in which they left the zeros off the dollar amounts they were discussing. There's no indication it was done for deceitful purposes. It’s common sense and smart not to mention how much money you or your wife have on a recorded jail line. Someone may overhear, like another inmate, who may decide to tell someone to rob you or your wife. A guard might overhear and innocently mention it to someone else who then decides to set up a robbery. He was probably the highest-profile inmate in the jail.

Since the state said in its motion to revoke bond that Zimmerman and his wife knew their calls were being recorded, it’s unlikely Zimmerman was speaking on a personal cell phone in his cell as opposed to on a jail line. It would take a wiretap to record calls on a personal cell phone, and wiretap applications are made ex parte. The orders are secret. Neither he nor his wife would have be aware of a wiretap or thus on notice their calls were being recorded. (I wouldn’t be surprised to learn law enforcement did get a wiretap order on his or his wife’s cell phone after the shooting, but neither of them would have been aware of it.) So it’s a fair assumption their calls were recorded on a jail phone which was used not only by Zimmerman, but other inmates as well, and that inmates were notified their calls were being recorded either by a sign posted near the phone or in the jail regulations they were given a copy of when booked into the jail.

As to confusion and mistrust, I think the timeline is key.

O'Mara only entered the case the day charges were filed and Zimmerman was arrested on April 11. (The Miami Herald says he took the case the night of April 11.) Zimmerman made his first court appearance on the 12th, with O'Mara, who told the media he was not taking fees and his client had no money. Zimmerman, you will recall, had been hiding for a month, out of state. Until that day, he was represented by other lawyers who advised him by phone and who had never met him in person.

The bond hearing was not until April 20. All of O’Mara’s meetings before the bond hearing took place at the jail. For much of that first week, from April 13 at least until April 16, O’Mara’s time was taken up with the issue of disqualifying the first judge. O'Mara had initially decided to delay requesting bond. He filed the motion for bond on April 16 (and the certificate of service shows he drafted it and sent a copy to the state’s attorney on April 12.). There were only four days between when he filed the motion and the hearing, to learn of any discrepancies.

The website Zimmerman set up to accept donations didn't go live until April 9 -- just 2 days before O’Mara entered the case and told the media Zimmerman he was working pro bono because Zimmerman had no money, and Zimmerman was charged and jailed.

O'Mara says in his website statement that their first conversation about the website funds was on April 25, the day before he went on CNN and told Anderson Cooper he had learned of the funds and two days before he told the Court. It may be that Zimmerman didn't tell him about the funds before that because he didn't understand the funds had any relevance to the amount of bond the judge would set. Perhaps he thought that money was “spoken for” – set aside for legal fees and living expenses and therefore not his money. Perhaps he thought it would be a misrepresentation to those who had contributed to use the money for bond, when he had represented on his website it would go to legal and living expenses. O’Mara told Anderson Cooper on April 26 that Zimmerman’s defense could cost between $500,000 and $1 million. If O’Mara had told Zimmerman that, surely he didn’t think the donations exceeded the amount needed for legal expenses.

While O'Mara had discussions with Zimmerman's wife (and likely his parents) to prepare them for their testimony at the bond hearing, he may not have had the same discussions with Zimmerman -- or even have told Zimmerman before the hearing what questions he was going to ask his wife and parents at the hearing.

If O'Mara had brought up the subject of available funds directly with Zimmerman between April 16, when he was told by his wife how much money was in the account, and April 20, the day of the bond hearing, O’Mara seems to think Zimmerman would have told him. O'Mara told the media on April 27 that "The moment I asked him about it, he acknowledged it and forwarded the money."

Shellie Zimmerman told the prosecutor on April 20 during cross-examination that George's brother knew how much money had been collected through the website, and that he was available to be contacted by phone. O'Mara confirmed during his direct questioning of Shellie Zimmerman that he and she had previously discussed the family finances. Did O'Mara not ask her about the website donations or learn it was George's brother who could answer questions about them?

Since the issue of the website money came up on cross-examination of Shellie Zimmerman on April 20, why didn't O'Mara ask her or his client or his client’s brother about the funds immediately after the bond hearing? Why did not he not think about it before April 26, when he says Zimmerman spontaneously brought them up during a discussion of shutting down Zimmerman's internet presence?

Not to be overlooked is that the prosecutor on cross-examination never asked Shellie Zimmerman if she had discussed the amounts raised by the website with George Zimmerman. He asked her whether she had discussed the amounts with her brother-in-law, whom she said was the person who would know the amount of funds in the account. She even said he was probably available to answer via telephone, but the prosecutor dropped the issue. From the transcript:

Q. Okay. Were you aware of the website that Mr. Zimmerman or somebody on his behalf created?
A. I'm aware of that website.
Q. And how much money is in that website right now? How much money as a result of that website was --
A. Currently, I do not know.
Q. Who would know that?
A. That would be my brother-in-law.
Q. And is he -- I know he's not in the same room as you, but is he available so we can speak to him, too, or the Court can inquire through the State or the Defense?
A. I'm sure that we could probably get him on the phone.
Q Okay. So he's not there now.
A. No, he is not, sir.
Q. Do you have any estimate as to how much money has already been obtained or collected?
A. I do not.
Q. Okay. You haven't talked to your brother-in-law in terms of just bare amount of how much money?
A. No. No, I have not
Q. Okay. And how long has that website been in existence, ma'am?
A. I do not know. I have not been with my husband since he's been in hiding. I do not know.
Q. Okay. So you mentioned your husband was in hiding. I understand he left the state, is that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q - Okay. And did you continue to have contact with him while he was out?
A. Yes, every day.
Q. And that was every day?
A. Yes.

The last conversation between Zimmerman and his wife that the state relied on in its motion to revoke bond took place on April 16, when she told Zimmerman there was 135 in it (allegedly referring to $135,000.) The website donations went to a Paypal account. The way Paypal works, money stays in the Paypal account until the account holder instructs Paypal to move a particular dollar amount to another account. Zimmerman (or someone acting on his behalf with his paypal account password) directed funds from paypal be transferred to his credit union account. It’s unlikely it was Zimmerman since he was arrested on April 11, just 2 days after the site went live. That leaves his wife and/or brother.

While the taped jail calls make it clear Shellie Zimmerman transferred funds from George’s credit union account to her credit union account, it’s not clear to me that she, as opposed to George’s brother, was the person who moved the money from Paypal to Zimmerman’s credit union account. It could have been either of them, or both of them, acting together or independently. The state never introduced documents from Paypal at the bond hearing, only statements from Zimmerman and his wife’s credit union accounts.

While Shellie Zimmerman knew the amount of funds in George’s credit union account on April 16, she may not have known the amount in the website/Paypal account on April 20, which is what she was asked by the prosecutor, particularly since money was coming in every day and her brother-in-law may also have been able to move funds out of the Paypal account. She may not have checked the Paypal account after April 16. She may not have wanted to speculate and give an answer that was wrong.

Shellie Zimmerman did not know when George Zimmerman started the website. He was in hiding and they had not been together since he left. The transcripts of the calls introduced by the prosecutor show that she was only provided access to “the account” on April 12, the day after Zimmerman’s arrest. The taped calls also reveal that a male had to change the security and give her a password. How could she know the total that had been raised or even give a reliable estimate if she didn’t know when the account was opened or what monies had been dispersed before she got access, or whether her brother-in-law had withdrawn money from the account? On April 16, Zimmerman instructed his wife to move the money not from the paypal/website account, but from his credit union account to her credit union account. Even if she had directed Paypal to move money to his credit union account, if she wasn’t the only one with access to the paypal account, how could she know for sure what was in it on April 20?

What about mistrust? What’s that about? I suspect O’Mara is saying Zimmerman didn’t trust O’Mara enough to tell him about the money before the bond hearing. Particularly if Zimmerman didn't understand the legal significance of the donations to the court's determination of the amount of bond, it's not surprising he didn't volunteer the information to O’Mara without being asked. He had known O'Mara for all of four days when O’Mara filed the motion for bond which asserted he had no money for bond. I wouldn’t be surprised if O’Mara has since learned that in other taped jail calls between Zimmerman and his family members (and there were more than 100 calls, about 14 a day between April 12 and April 20), they discussed not telling O’Mara about the funds, because they weren’t sure they trusted him yet.

With O’Mara taking over Zimmerman's representation when he was jailed on April 11, they hardly had enough time to develop a trusting relationship. Zimmerman probably (and justly) had a distrust of lawyers after hearing his first set of lawyers opine on his mental state to the media. It may not have been until after the bond hearing on April 20, when Zimmerman had an opportunity to assess O’Mara’s performance at the bond hearing, that he decided he was comfortable with him and would keep him as his lawyer. And he did volunteer the information about the funds to O’Mara on April 25, just five days after the hearing.

If Zimmerman was hiding the money to mislead the Court and get a low bond, why would he have asked O’Mara five days after the bond hearing what he should do with the money? According to O’Mara’s interview with Anderson Cooper on April 26, Zimmerman told O’Mara about the funds in the context of "What should I do with the money? There’s no suggestion Zimmerman told O’Mara about the funds in the context of "I should have told you about this earlier." It sounds to me like on April 25 when Zimmerman told his lawyer about the money, he was still clueless as to its relevance to the issue of bond.

Similarly, if Zimmerman intended to keep the funds a secret, why did he immediately agree to turn over control of them to O'Mara? (Since Zimmerman was not in court on April 27 when O'Mara advised the court of the money raised through the paypal account, and that the money had already been transferred to O’Mara’s trust account, Zimmerman had to have effectuated the transfer before court on the 27th.)

Also, Zimmerman did not lie about his finances during his intake interview with pretrial services, which makes a recommendation as to bond. Here's his intake form. He was never asked about the amount of money he has, only whether he's employed and was seeking a public defender. He truthfully said he was not employed and his lawyer was Mark O’Mara.

I don't see anything to indicate Zimmerman knew or believed in advance of the April 20th bond hearing that the funds he had raised were “assets”, in the way most people think of assets, like a car or house or savings or investments. Nor do I see any indication he knew before the hearing his wife would be asked about the website funds, and that they had agreed to deceive the court about them.

It seems more likely to me Zimmerman didn't know the website donations were relevant to the court's decision on the amount of bond and therefore had to be disclosed because no one, including O'Mara, had asked him about the funds or explained their relevance to him.

I don’t see a conspiracy between Zimmerman and his wife to hide money from the court to get a lower bond. I see the difficulties that arise when a lawyer is new to a case, has limited time to spend with the client because he's in jail, and has to prepare for a bond hearing relying primarily on information from relatives.

O'Mara's first week on the job was spent giving interviews to counteract the massive, prejudicial media bias created by filing of charges and relentless attacks by Team Crump; moving to recuse the first circuit court judge; and trying to establish a meaningful relationship with a newly jailed client who had just fired his first lawyers and been charged with an offense that carries a possible life penalty.

While O'Mara undoubtedly discussed with his client how the bail process works and the possible outcomes with Zimmerman, given the limited time for jail conferences amidst all else that was going on, O'Mara may not have personally grilled him on his assets and amount of funds in his bank accounts, particularly since he was relying on his relatives for that testimony.( It is extremely rare to put a client on the stand at a bail/detention hearing, which is why O’Mara called him only for the limited purpose of apologizing to the Martins.)

Ignorance of the law may not be a defense to criminal liability, but it doesn't equate to deceit. While there may be additional information we are not yet privy too, based on what we know now, I don’t think George Zimmerman misrepresented anything to the court, or that his silence after his wife’s testimony indicates an intent to deceive the court. I don’t see how his credibility is diminished , particularly on the topic of the shooting of Trayvon Martin.

All three instances where Zimmerman’s credibility is being called into question in the court of public opinion seem to involve miscommunications with his lawyer. O’Mara says he didn’t ask about the website funds before the April 20 bond hearing. He apparently didn’t ask after the April 20 bond hearing, since he says Zimmerman brought them up in a conversation on April 25 while they were discussing other matters. On the passport issue, O’Mara says Zimmerman found and transferred it to him within days of the April 20 hearing, but he left it in his pleading file for a month, mistakenly thinking he had filed it with the court.

As to Zimmerman's wife's testimony at the bond hearing, O’Mara prepped her for her testimony. She was his witness. O’Mara knew in advance what she would testify to on direct and should have prepared her for handling cross-examination. Most lawyers tell their witnesses to listen carefully to the question and answer the question truthfully, but not to volunteer information. O’Mara later said he never gave the website funds a thought. If he never gave them a thought, it’s unlikely he explained their importance or relevance to the issue of bond to either Zimmerman or his wife.

O’Mara may not be "at fault" given the enormous pressures and time constraints he was working under, the limited time he had to develop his client’s trust, and the unfavorable conditions for conferences with his client, but if he didn't ask or discuss the website funds with his client, despite knowing he had such a website, how was Zimmerman to know the funds were still considered “his” even though he had earmarked them for other purposes, and had to be disclosed?

What's clear is that Zimmerman intended to use some of the donated funds for bond; that he knew the amount on hand as of April 16 when his wife told him “135"; and that he ceased having the ability to direct the disbursement of the funds from the website after April 25 or 26,when he turned them over to O'Mara. I don't see a defendant with diminished credibility. I see a poorly informed client.

Since O’Mara is now saying his client made a mistake in not informing the court of the funds, and includes his client's “mistrust” along with fear and confusion as the explanation, it may be that Zimmerman actually misled O’Mara because he didn’t yet trust him, and O'Mara is falling on his sword for his client, rather than that O’Mara dropped the ball. O’Mara comes across as a seasoned practitioner who takes his time to consider his available options. He seems to act after deliberation, rather than spontaneously.

But if that’s not the case, and he didn’t explain what “available funds and assets" were to Zimmerman and his family; he didn’t ask about the website donations even after his wife was grilled about them on cross; and the passport snafu was his, I don’t see why his client's credibility is diminished for things his lawyer could have, and perhaps should have, anticipated and inquired about, which potentially could have avoided the problems entirely.