re: #87 goddamnedfrank

How? Again, they have no affirmative duty to say to Zimmerman, “Hey, what about that Paypal account and website of yours we read about?” The fact that we can sit here and say it was monumentally stupid of Zimmerman to think he could keep such a thing secret after it was written about in dozens of national press stories doesn’t have any bearing on the court’s credibility.

The fact that I already knew an answer to a question I put to someone doesn’t affect my credibility at all, whether or not they lie to me. It may seem like a gotcha situation and unfair from their (rather biased) perspective, but if it tells me something about their overall trustworthiness then the exercise is both ethical and incredibly useful.

The state doesn’t allege his lied, they allege he was deceitful by omission. He only took the stand during the hearing to give his apology to the Martin family, he was never asked about his finances, even when the prosecution cross-examined him. The state’s case amounts to his being guilty of deception by not jumping up after his wife’s testimony to tell the court that she’d just committed perjury.