Skip to comments.Trayvon Martin: Attorneys say Zimmerman contacted prosecutor, Sean Hannity
Posted on 04/10/2012 5:15:23 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
The two men who have been George Zimmerman's most outspoken defenders, attorneys Hal Uhrig and Craig Sonner, said today that they're off the case.
"On Sunday, we lost track of George, in that he would not return our calls," attorney Uhrig said. Said attorney Craig Sonner, "I've lost contact with him at this point."
The lawyers had been publicly representing Zimmerman, the Neighborhood Watch volunteer who fatally shot 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, in the media as calls for his arrest continue to grow.
But they said Tuesday that Zimmerman who, they say, has left the state has stopped answering their phone calls, and has made a series of decisions that the two lawyers would not have advised.
The lawyers said Zimmerman called Sean Hannity of Fox News without consulting them. He also called the special prosecutor in the case, something the attorneys said they'd never have told him to do.
"We were a bit astonished," Uhrig said. He praised Special Prosecutor Angela Corey's office for declining to speak with Zimmerman without legal counsel.
Asked about Hannity's interactions with Zimmerman, a Fox News Channel spokeswoman said the issue "will be addressed on Hannity's show tonight." The show, "Hannity," airs at 9 p.m.
Uhrig added that he thinks Zimmerman is going through post-traumatic stress and is "largely alone...
(Excerpt) Read more at baltimoresun.com ...
I get the feeling Zimmerman is throwing himself on the knife out of pressure and feelings of guilt thus his contact with the prosecutor. Absolutely disgusting to drive the guy to that when most likely he was a victim of what can only be described as a mugging. Just think: He’s getting more hate, more threats, more protests against him than Casey Anthony. But that’s liberals for you. Cop killers like Mumia Abu Jamal are heroes to them. Vermin like Stanley Tookie Smith they consider legends. But a guy who defends his life must be lynched.
he'll never get away with it, being a white-hispanic ya know...
What does that say about our country and our justice system?
When a group can put out a bounty on someone's head and our justice system refuses to prosecute them - we're not much different from Africa or some other third world country.
I don't even have to consider that one of our GOP presidential candidates pronounced him guilty of murder.
What kind of attorney doesn't meet with his client after all this time?
I'd get a better attorney, stay out of sight, and if I needed money have someone else solicit it, not me. And STFU!
As with other professionals, the attorney-client privilege belongs to the client. In the eyes of the law, the confidentiality privilege between pastor and parishoner belongs to the parishoner and not to the pastor. Despite any vows or pledges made by the professionals, they are not the ones in charge. If a legitimate privilege exists, then it cannot be violated by the professional. In this case, that’s the client, Zimmerman.
That is true even if he releases them from their part in his case. That is true until the point he specifically releases them to speak freely.
For one thing they speculated about their clients mental state on national television. The mere fact they held a news conference to announce their departure was an ethical breech.
The attorneys speculated about Zimmerman’s current mental state, based on his behavior in refusing to communicate with them. They did not speculate about his mental state at the time he shot Martin. There is no ethical violation in holding a press conference for what has been made into the biggest legal media story of the moment.
How about Martin’s attorney threatening the special prosecutor with “pandemonium,” i.e., riots, if she doesn’t file charges? In a media interview for a foreign news outlet, no less.
In this case, Zimmerman apparently had an agreement for these 2 lawyers to represent his interests in matters relating to the Martin shooting. Unless and until charges are filed, there is no ‘case’ but there surely are ‘interests.’
If there were a case filed in court, the attorneys would have had to file a motion to withdraw, setting out their reasons, citing examples. In this case, it would be failure to communicate. Courts don’t let attorneys just walk away from a client, the attorneys have to set out their reasons, and the court then has to allow the withdrawal.
Were there a case, the filing of that motion would instantly become a matter of public record. In the absence of a suit or charges having been filed, and nowhere to file a motion to withdraw, they held a press conference. They had already ‘entered their appearance’ in the court of public opinion. How else were they to withdraw from that court?
Attorney-client privilege doesn’t extend to the public information of the fact that said attorneys represent(ed) Zimmerman, or the fact of their withdrawal from that representation. Those are matters of public record. I would imagine it’s not much different from a pastor acknowledging publicly that someone belonged to his congregation but no longer does. Would that mean the pastor has breached his congregant’s privilege?
You are 100% wrong about both the breach of client confidentiality and attorney ethics.
They used to.
Not anymore. The cartels have guards on the border now to ensure that NO ONE crosses IN EITHER DIRECTION without paying a fee.
I am praying for Zimmerman.
That may be true, however the attorney is not free to state the reason for the withdrawal if it conveys any privileged communication (or lack of it thereof) or it can prejudice the client.
In this case, there was no "case" so there was no reason to submit any statement to the court. The representation in this case was purely advisory and ANY statement issued by the attorneys would have to be cleared by the client. In this case these lawyers have publicly prejudiced the interests of their client by revealing that they were not only withdrawing from the case, but that they were doing it because their client was either not following their advice or was not communicating with them.
These attorneys were not looking out for the welfare of their client, they were looking out for their own public image. The ETHICAL response to why they were withdrawing should have been "No Comment". Instead they publicly threw the blame on their client and left him hanging out to dry.
Non-communication is a privileged communication. The advice an attorney gives his client (such as "Don't talk to Hannity") is also a privileged communication. The fact that they revealed that their client was not taking their advice is as much a violation ethics as their revealing things he had told them.
BTW are you an attorney?
If so would you have done what these two did if your client did not follow your advice or was not actively communicating with you?
What one pays monthly to survive in the ghetto.
He could just dress up like OBL. Look how long it took to find him.
That's OK. Obama approved it , and he's the President.
They questioned his competence publicly. It is unclear that these amber lens chasers actually were his attorneys or have even met Zimmerman in person.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.