So maybe O'Mara gets another shot over the 42 minute difference. Maybe there was a phone call and a hurried filing for his parting shot.

Interestingly I head this argument:

2) no alternatives than chance of venue, would protect the Defendant's right to a fair trial

really early.

The "problem" as far as publishing "too much" here is that the prosecution is taking tangential material that it knows or hopes will "damage" Zimmerman (just annoying pressure points is enough, even if there is no damage in the court), and calling it "discovery."  The state has the keys to make all sorts of private material public.  All it has to do is say it is "discovery," and then, by operation of law, it becomes public.

A judge must perform judicial duties impartially and fairly. A judge who manifests bias on any basis in a proceeding impairs the fairness of the proceeding and brings the judiciary into disrepute. Facial expression and body language, in addition to oral communication, can give to parties or lawyers in the proceeding, jurors, the media and others an appearance of judicial bias. A judge must be alert to avoid behavior that may be perceived as prejudicial.

The cutoff for producing discovery was set as August 8, docket sounding.  I have no reason to think the state would complete its production before the deadline.  I expect it would sit on evidence, in whatever fashion it finds most advantageous for obtaining a conviction, until the last minute.

The reason Martin's character isn't a focal point is because the MSM refuses to cover it, not because there isn't plenty of derogatory information which will come out eventually.  Even Fox News is afraid to "go there".  I suspect that will change after the election.  Zimmerman supporters don't need to mount a disinformation campaign as has been done from the beginning by Crump, they just need to get the truth out.

I don't think O'Mara has any concern that the release of 140+ jailhouse calls poses a threat to his case.  I suspect that release will be similar in character to the release of the FBI interviews seeking evidence of racial prejudice on Zimmerman's part - helpful to Zimmerman's case.  

So the question is, are those people only interested in Zimmerman being "vindicated," regardless of whether there is any "information" that would cast some "doubt" on whether he should be?

Perfectly put, Anne, what puzzled me initially and made me take a closer look, by the way.

There was one sentence by my father that drove me nuts as a teenager. The only person I met that ever understood this, was a director I watched working really carefully on the articulation of this sentence by an actor. It basically denies your perception of reality, declaring it impossible to exist.

The sentence itself is almost impossible to translate. But in it's essence it would something like that can't be or that can't exist. Meaning in context: Impossible something like that ever happened, or is true.

Google translate renders the original: Das gibts doch gar nicht! as: There is not the

I trust US agents to be able to find out if she really knows him or doesn't and that the things she says can be verified independently. I would assume that must have been the case. Otherwise we would get no chance to hear her testimony.

De la Rionda expressly said that W9's testimony is potentially relevant, in response to O'Mara's contention that her testimony was irrelevant and prejudicial.  Lester notes the potential introduction of W9 at trial, as well, echoing de la Rionda's statement.

It's water over the dam, now.  Zimmerman's been charged, and the only way out is forward.  I don't think Corey is going to unilaterally drop charges (although she has the power to do that, too), so the only ways to dispose of the charge are through orders of the court.

O'Mara cites other examples of Lester reaching conclusions against Zimmerman, where Lester totally discounts or ignores evidence in his client's favor.  Those too are evidence of bias.

Lester didn't need to say many of the things he said, in order to reach the conclusion the legal posture demanded.  But he said them, and in so doing, he produced evidence of his own bias against Zimmerman.  He could have said he didn't believe certain discrete statements (which damages Zimmerman's credibility) without reaching the conclusions he did.  "Zimmerman has no reasonable basis to feel betrayed," "Zimmerman was planning to flee," and a couple others.

Question: Is the financial disclosure a core condition in granting bond, or a non-negligent behavior of the defendant if he lies about it, even actively tries to hide money?

But admittedly I was very surprised about Lester's decision. I wouldn't have expected it, even am on record to doubt any consequences on another legal bog. Surely I wouldn't have expected Lester to be so close to what the story feels to me.

So I must be influenced by US media? He must be? Well I am not, I can assure you. I am even at times puzzled about fast judgements in articles like this that seem to move quite a bit beyond available provable evidence it feels.

Lester could have, on June 1, taken O'Mara's objection to taking up the Motion to Revoke Bond at that time.  O'Mara's objection was well taken, as the rules provide Defendant a continuance (delay) when the matter is denial of bond.  After taking evidence, Lester could have composed an order denying bond that followed the legal requirements for denying bond, i.e., as articulated in the Paul case, instead of imposing detention unlawfully.  O'Mara didn't push either of those points directly, he moved for reconsideration, and apprised the court of the legal standard.

On disposing of the Motion to Reconsider, on June 29, Lester could have acknowledged that defendant had damaged his credibility without saying that defendant had in fact planned to flee, and that defendant had no reasonable basis to believe he would not be charged, among other conclusions that lack a fully aired body of evidence.  He could have also acknowledged (although he had no need to) that defendant appears to have a legitimate self defense argument countering the state's allegation of murder.

He wouldn't have ruled any differently.  The allegation of bias is not rooted in the finding that Zimmerman misled the court on April 20th.

In summary, there is no first amendment right of access to pretrial discovery material. There is in Florida a statutory right of access to such material when it becomes a public record, but that statutory right must be balanced against the constitutional rights of a fair trial and due process.

Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Lewis established a three-pronged test:

1. Closure is necessary to prevent a serious and imminent threat to the administration of justice;

2. No alternatives are available, other than change of venue, which would protect a defendant's right to a fair trial; and

3. Closure would be effective in protecting the rights of the accused, without being broader than necessary to accomplish this purpose.
   

Kruse v. State, 483 So. 2d 1383 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986):

First, we agree that the court erred by allowing the state to cross-examine the appellant's character witness as to his knowledge of other specific arrests and accusations against appellant for the same type of crime. The rule is clear that the state may only rebut testimony on reputation for good moral character, by reputation testimony as to bad moral character, not by cross-examination about prior arrests or specific bad acts. Dixon v. State, 426 So.2d 1258 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Michaels v. State, 429 So.2d 338 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); §§ 90.404(1)(a), 90.405, Fla. Stat. (1983). Here the state was allowed, through the guise of impeaching a character witness, to inform the jury that the appellant had been accused of other specific child sexual abuse crimes, evidence that is admitted to be irrelevant and inadmissible on the present charges, and of such a nature that we could hardly hold harmless.