[Previous entry: "Week one of US vs Zimmermann."] [Next entry: "Dean Zimmermann Convicted, Judge makes reversible Error"]

08/09/2006: "Week two of US vs Zimmerman the Defense"

Dean’s Defense tried to make several main points.

Point One – Dean, as a city councilman, believed it was his job to help constituents negotiate the city bureaucracy. To this end he helped people who had issues with zoning or permits or whatever they needed in with the city. The defense called several people who Dean had helped regardless of if he really thought their project was an idea he would champion. It was part of what he saw as his job as a councilman. He said this is what he was doing for Gary Carlson, and the donations that Mr. Carlson gave to the defense committee, or to his campaign played no role in his actions.

The judge limited severely the number of these witnesses. There were only a few.

Point Two – He was very clear with people that the $5,000 and $1,000 he received from Carlson was a donation to the legal effort of the “FREE” committee. They called the lawyer, who testified that Dean told him about the money, and that Dean was told that they should hold on to it for a while. The defense also called a person who was involved in the leadership of the law suit who testified that Dean offered to give him the $5,000. This person testified that he didn’t want to take the money as the account had been closed and suggested Dean hold on to it until the treasurer was back in the country.

The defense produced a voided check for $5,000 that Dean had written to the FREE committee at that time. It had a memo on it that said “donation from Gary Carlson”.

The prosecution took the position that the check was not a year old, and had been produced within the last week.

The defense wanted to call other witnesses to testify that at the time (a year ago) Dean had told them that he had received the donation from Carlson. Judge Ann Montgomery ruled that this testimony would be hearsay and they could not testify.

Judge Montgomery was wrong in this ruling, and it is very important. The testimony would be hearsay, if the defense was trying to demonstrate the truth of the statements that Dean had made, but in this case, all that was important was that the statements were made. The fact that the statements were made is a fact that the witness can testify to and it is not hearsay. If the jury convicts, it might be because they believe that Dean received this money as a personal bribe, not as a donation. If so, this ruling could be reversible error.

Next was Dean’s testimony. For two days Dean was on the stand both direct and tough cross examination.

Dean came across as forthright. He did admit that he lied to the FBI about the money, he said he was unnerved by their questioning him.

He denied over and over again that there was any connection between the money he received and the assistance he gave Mr. Carlson. He also said that his advocacy for his ex wife’s property was unrelated to his position as a council member, or his willingness to sign documents or do anything else for the developer.

The prosecution asked him many times about the voided check. He really tried to make the case to the jury that Dean was lying about when he made the check. It is for this reason that the ruling by the judge to not allow Dean to call people to testify that he told people about the check and the donation over a year ago is particularly hurtful to Dean’s case.

The whole thing will come down to who the jury chooses to believe. If the jury wants to trust Dean, they certainly can explain away all of the video and audio tapes. On the other hand, if the Jury doesn’t believe in Dean’s honesty, they can convict.

The jury will begin deliberating after final arguments today. I have hope that truth will prevail.