Much as I thought Mark O’Mara’s handling of the bail hearing, providing George Zimmerman an opportunity to apologize publicly for killing Trayvon Martin, was a brilliant move, I’m not nearly as clear on his latest venture.

Now, defense attorneys for George Zimmerman, the Neighborhood Watch volunteer charged in the teen’s death, have entered the virtual conversation. In an unusual move, Mark O’Mara has started a blog and accompanying Twitter and Facebook accounts to communicate directly with the public.

That’s right. Meet the new social media portal for Zimmerman, GZLegalCase.com.  It’s a new world out there, kids, and if it’s not online, it doesn’t exist.  Apparently, that’s true for high profile criminal defense as well.  Don’t all rush to friend him at once.

At least one “trial consultant” thinks this is a great idea.

“This is a brilliant move on his part,” says Amy Singer, a Gainesville-based trial consultant. By engaging the public online, “you get a lot of comments, a lot of perspectives, a lot of discussion.”

Ah, Gainesville, that hotbed of cutting edge trial consulting. You also get a massive opportunity to screw up, but it seems that went unmentioned in the quote.

Because thousands of people give their opinions unsolicited through social media, services such as Twitter can put a defense team in the enviable position of being “a fly on the wall,” Singer said, monitoring how people react to each twist and turn.

O’Mara, she said, has just taken the next logical step. By creating a Facebook and Twitter profile, “all that they’re doing is joining in the conversation” already taking place online.

Therein lies the difference, and the “next logical step” isn’t necessarily next or logical, and may well be a huge leap. Over a cliff.  A very big cliff with sharp rocks at the bottom.

It’s one thing to monitor what “thousands of people” are twitting. It’s another, entirely, to affirmative put in writing on the internet assertions that relate to a legal proceeding.  Monitoring holds no risk, though it is no doubt a nightmare reading the nonsense and ignorance floating across your screen and not wanting to scream at the people who either get the facts all wrong (at least from your perspective) or offer opinions that are just mind-numbingly stupid.  But then, this could be your jury pool and, for better or worse, it certainly better to know than not know.

Getting involved, however, is a commitment.  Once something is put “out there” by the defense, they live with it. There’s no denying it. There’s no explaining it. It becomes a part of the case, and they won’t know how well it plays in Peoria (and eventually in Sanford, Florida), until the furor dies down.

This is a very risky proposition.

Acknowledging that the decision to take this route is “controversial,” today’s post states:

Using social media in a high-profile lawsuit is new, and relatively unprecedented, but that is only because social media itself is relatively new. We repeat our contention that social media in this day and age cannot be ignored, and it would be, in fact, irresponsible to ignore the robust online conversation.

Mind you, it’s unsigned, and, if O’Mara is as smart as I believe, written by someone substantially more social media savvy than he. Still, it’s attributable to him, and there is absolutely no plausible deniability.  Already, the posts seem to be subtly inconsistent, as two days ago, O’Mara explained that one of the purposes of his blog was to “dispute misinformation.”  Yet in today’s post, he writes:

We Will Not Use Our Online Presence As A Vehicle For Dissemination Of, Nor Will We Comment On Any Evidence Regarding this Case

One of our core objectives is to discourage speculation regarding the facts and evidence of the case. We commit to avoid even the appearance of any impropriety regarding information traveling through our website and social media profiles which could, in any way affect the proper presentation of the case where it is to be tried — in a courtroom. An example of that commitment is our evolving rules regarding the moderation of comments posted. We intend to remain very conservative in limiting such conversations so as to avoid any possible negative impact on the criminal justice system.

That didn’t take long. How exactly one disputes misinformation without commenting on information is a bit of a mystery.

The rationale du jour is that the “online presence” will serve to deal with the “enormity” of the public reaction to the Trayvon Martin killing. 

Our online presence was created in response to the enormity of interest which has inundated the firm since our first day of involvement. Literally hundreds of emails and phone calls came in within hours of our announcement regarding our representation of Mr. Zimmerman. It became readily apparent that an alternative forum was necessary to handle the high volume of interest we receive.

Social media is the obvious answer.

While I have no doubt that social media marketers and sycophants will adore this notion, I’m not buying. The best thing for George Zimmerman is to let the media interest die out, fade away and move on to the next biggest legal story ever in the history of the world. There will be another story tomorrow. There always is, and it pushes Zimmerman to the back page, below the fold.  It may not quite go away, but the lower the volume the better for Zimmerman.

This seems to be quite a different approach, as if they are courting continued media interest, doing everything possible to keep the profile of this case as high as possible.  Rather than quiet the lynch mob, they are encouraging it. How is this good for Zimmerman?

My suspicion is that this has nothing to do with Zimmerman, per se, but is a vehicle for legal defense donations. As usual, high profile defendants rarely have any money for counsel, and it can take a ton of time to court the media, if one is so inclined. Of course, if you just ignore the media, it takes no time at all.

The Zimmerman contingent has received donations of about $200,000 so far, which is being used to pay O’Mara as well as cover Zimmerman’s “living expenses.” This money came directly to Zimmerman, however, with no strings attached. I suspect O’Mara would prefer the money went to his paypal account instead.

While the rhetoric surrounding this “controversial” use of social media seems designed, if poorly, to appeal to people who aren’t inclined to think too hard, either about its internal consistency or the validity of the rationales, the bigger question will be whether O’Mara is sufficiently media savvy, and internet savvy, not to have this explode in his face. Based on what I’ve read thus far, I wouldn’t bet on it.