Well, did any of us figure that MOM was suckering in Judge Lester to show Lester's bias right out in the open? I certainly don't think Lester saw it coming. We all thought that that MOM was a wuss at the last hearing, at least I did. J I think he may have a lot more up his sleeve than we know.
As I said, I don't know if he would have to take the stand in a Dennis hearing
Nejame and Lester and O'Mara are all friends and as such I think Lester knew he could walk all over O'Mara without a peep from him. I think that O'Mara realized that he was the laughing stock around the courthouse, agreeing with everything Lester said and did, and leaving his client out there to hang.
He finally found his backbone, or perhaps he read the blogs and heard what everyone was saying about his incompetence, or perhaps the Zimmerman family told him to defend George or resign. Anyway he finally after three months did something that showed guts. Let's hope he follows through.
Remember that it was O'Mara who got Reckseidler to step aside, leaving George with one less disqualify the judge card. So this just might an effort in futility which has been MoM's MO all along. That's hardly a strategy.
I don't think he was doing that. O'Mara's a pretty good advocate, but he's not conniving like that. The putting on of evidence showing self defense was just what he said to the judge, a reaction to the judge's statement that the state's case was strong. O'Mara figures the judge is going by the book, and since there is scant self defense evidence in the record (introduced past discovery), he'll introduce it, and the judge will find that the defense is strong, too.
-- I certainly don't think Lester saw it coming. --
I think O'Mara was the one caught by surprise by the tone and tenor of the July 5 Order. I don't have a transcript, but I recall O'Mara saying, at the June 29 hearing, that he hadn't been (like as of June 1) all that familiar with Arthur (and I assume, if that's true, he also didn't know the Paul case about the necessary findings for denial of bail). Taking him at his word on that, he's covering the base by introducing evidence, and now, in the motion preceding the June 29 bond hearing, he's also telling Lester that the Paul case controls denial of bond.
I would not be surprised if O'Mara came to an understanding sometime before June 29, but after June 1, that his client was being held unlawfully. But rather than raise a stink about it by filing a habeas petition with an appellate court, he'd maintain deference to Lester, and undertake a good faith effort to present the controlling law along with evidence and argument that his client could not be denied bond under the Paul case.
Parts of the July 5 Order were exactly as O'Mara described, gratuitous conclusions, reached without full consideration of possible evidence. Zimmerman was planning to flee? Zimmerman had no reasonable basis to conclude he wasn't going to be charged? Zimmerman has to feel that the judge isn't interested in getting to the truth, and that the judge has a blind eye for the defense evidence.
Then the judge all but tells the state that Zimmerman should be charged with lying too, under the bond statute, and if that doesn't happen (if the prosecutor doesn't press the criminal charge) then Lester will exercise his contempt powers.
If Zimmerman expresses that he doesn't think he's going to get fair treatment from the court, as a presumed innocent defendant under the overwhelming weight of the state, it's an issue, and O'Mara has to address it.