Sanford, Florida (CNN) -- George Zimmerman returned to central Florida late Saturday and will surrender to authorities before a Sunday afternoon deadline, his attorneys said.

A judge revoked Zimmerman's bond Friday, saying he misled the court about his finances.

Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch volunteer, is accused of shooting unarmed teenager Trayvon Martin in a gated community in Sanford in February. Zimmerman argues he acted in self-defense.

"While out on bond, Mr. Zimmerman has been living in a secure, undisclosed location as there are significant threats against his life," his attorneys said Sunday on the official website for his defense.

"The defense team has coordinated with the Sanford Police Department to ensure Mr. Zimmerman's security when he turns himself in before today's 2:30 p.m. deadline," the website posting said.

Zimmerman is charged with second-degree murder in the case that sparked anger across the country.

Martin's family contends that Zimmerman racially profiled the 17-year-old who was walking home from a convenience store. Martin was black; Zimmerman his white Hispanic. His family has said Zimmerman did not act out of racial bias.

Seminole County Judge Kenneth Lester Jr. ordered Zimmerman back to jail, saying the 28-year-old was not truthful about how much money he had access to when he was freed on bond in April.

Lester's ruling on Friday followed allegations by prosecutors that Zimmerman had $135,000. At the time, his wife told the court under oath that the family was indigent.

Zimmerman's attorneys said they will request a new bond hearing to address the issue. "The defense team hopes that Mr. Zimmerman's voluntary surrender to Sanford police will help demonstrate to the court that he is not a flight risk. Furthermore, the vast majority of the funds in question are in an independently managed trust" which Zimmerman and his attorneys cannot access directly, the statement on his defense website said.

Zimmerman's trial is not "anticipated" to be ready until some time in 2013, the statement said, and the next bond hearing will determine whether he waits "those many months in jail or not."

Zimmerman was charged in April after the case was referred to a state attorney for a review.

The money in question appears to have been donated to Zimmerman through a website he set up to help with a legal defense fund.

Citing recorded jailhouse conversations between Zimmerman and his wife, prosecutors alleged the two spoke in code when discussing the money in a credit union account, according to a court documents filed Friday by State Attorney Angela B. Corey.

In light of that, Lester revoked Zimmerman's bond and ordered he turn himself in no later than Sunday afternoon.

Zimmerman "fully controlled and participated in the transfer of money from the PayPal account to defendant and his wife's credit union accounts," Corey said in court records. "This occurred prior to the time defendant was arguing to the court that he was indigent and his wife had no money."

Mark O'Mara, Zimmerman's attorney, said in April that the money raised by the website was put into a trust account that the attorney controls.

But in court documents, Corey said the money still belongs to the defendant.

The judge "relied on false representations and statements" by Zimmerman and his wife when the court set his bond at $150,000, Corey said. Zimmerman was required to post only 10% of that.

Corey argued that the court should revoke the bond or increase it.

Lester appeared angry that the court had not been told about the money.

"Does your client get to sit there like a potted palm and let you lead me down the primrose path?" he asked Zimmerman's lawyer. "That's the issue."

O'Mara said he had discussed the judge's decision with Zimmerman, who was not in court.

"He's frustrated because he now has to come out of hiding," O'Mara said in an interview with CNN.

"You need to realize we're still talking about a 28-year-old who's being charged with a crime he does not believe he committed, and his whole life has been turned upside down, so I think that it all needs to be kept in context."

AustonT wrote:I thought communication between a husband and wife were privileged. Especially were neither spouse has been convicted.

AustonT wrote:I thought communication between a husband and wife were privileged. Especially were neither spouse has been convicted.

d-usa wrote:Looks like he was also ordered to surrender his passport. Turns out he had two of them and only surrendered one of them (the one that was about to expire).

At this point his credibility is one of his biggest assets, and he is not doing well in keeping it alive. This is starting to feel pretty similar to the OKC pharmacy shooting a few years back.

azazel the cat wrote:

AustonT wrote:I thought communication between a husband and wife were privileged. Especially were neither spouse has been convicted.

A spouse cannot be compelled to testify against the other in court, and their private conversations are considered to be privileged. However, that expectation of privacy does not exist within prisons.

CT GAMER wrote:

d-usa wrote:Looks like he was also ordered to surrender his passport. Turns out he had two of them and only surrendered one of them (the one that was about to expire).

At this point his credibility is one of his biggest assets, and he is not doing well in keeping it alive. This is starting to feel pretty similar to the OKC pharmacy shooting a few years back.

And yet people will continue to make excuses for this lying, murdering, piece of garbage...

I wish him the worse.

AustonT wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:

AustonT wrote:I thought communication between a husband and wife were privileged. Especially were neither spouse has been convicted.

A spouse cannot be compelled to testify against the other in court, and their private conversations are considered to be privileged. However, that expectation of privacy does not exist within prisons.

He isn't in prison, which is why I ask.

d-usa wrote:

AustonT wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:

AustonT wrote:I thought communication between a husband and wife were privileged. Especially were neither spouse has been convicted.

A spouse cannot be compelled to testify against the other in court, and their private conversations are considered to be privileged. However, that expectation of privacy does not exist within prisons.

He isn't in prison, which is why I ask.

Was he in prison when this conversation happened though? Maybe there is not a way to have different standards between prisoners that are pending trial and prisoners that are convicted?

I'm not a lawyer either and I have never been in jail, so I don't know.

AustonT wrote:

d-usa wrote:

AustonT wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:

AustonT wrote:I thought communication between a husband and wife were privileged. Especially were neither spouse has been convicted.

A spouse cannot be compelled to testify against the other in court, and their private conversations are considered to be privileged. However, that expectation of privacy does not exist within prisons.

He isn't in prison, which is why I ask.

Was he in prison when this conversation happened though? Maybe there is not a way to have different standards between prisoners that are pending trial and prisoners that are convicted?

I'm not a lawyer either and I have never been in jail, so I don't know.

There is a great deal of difference between prison and jail; namely a jail hosts people who are charged with or suspected of crimes and awaiting trial or being charged. They do have convicts but that's not the issue here. Prisons only have one type of resident; convicted criminals. So no he wasn't in prison when the conversation happened, but he was in jail. Like I said upthread you prepare your defense in jail so I would assume there is a reasonable expectation of privacy and the inclusion of privileged spousal communication whilst incarcerated.

State v. Howard (1990), 62 Ohio App 3d 910 -- Syllabus prepared by the court: "(1) A conversation between spouses is not privileged and is admissible in a criminal trial when the conversation was conducted in the presence or hearing of third parties. (2) Ohio's spousal privilege statutes protect oral communications with one's spouse intended to be private, but do not protect written communications with one's spouse, even though it is reasonably expected that the communication will remain confidential. [Also see Holtz v. Dick (1884), 42 Ohio St. 23] (3) A recording of a telephone conversation is admissible in evidence when one of the parties to the conversation has given prior consent to the recording."

When are Confidential Communications Not Privileged?

Conversations are not considered privileged if someone overhears the private conversation. For example, the doctor-patient privilege doesn¿t apply if made in the presence of a nurse, and the spousal privilege doesn't apply if the conversation takes place in the presence of another relative, like a child. In addition, spousal communication made within any jail or law enforcement building, even if you're inside a private room, is not privileged.

Marital communication is not privileged in suits between spouses, or when there is violent crime between husband and wife.

Essential to the marital privilege is that the communications are (1.) between a lawfully married couple; (2.) are made in private; and (3.) that the communications contain private information. Communication between wife and husband made in the course of a conspiracy to commit an unlawful act is not privileged. See State v. Doney, 114 Wis. 2d 309, 338 N.W.2d 852 (Ct. App. 1983). Thus, where a husband and wife communicate, orally and in privacy, any testimony relating to this communication by the wife would be excludable if the husband were to be prosecuted for an offense not related to the wife. 9 State v. Sabin, 79 Wis. 2d 302, 255 N.W.2d 320 (1977). However, the mere presence or hearing of a third person destroys the privileged nature of an otherwise "private communication" between husband and wife.

us wrote:snip

d-usa wrote:Sorry, I wasn't careful with my choice of prison/jail. Can jails hold convicted criminals while they are pending transfer to the prison system?

One thing that I don't think the article was very clear on was if those "jailhouse" conversations were in person, via the telephone/glass thing we see on TV, or via telephone. I will also admit that I don't know if the form of communication would make a difference. I do agree that as far as I know attorney conversations are are private, but I don't know about family/spousal visits. It seems like they may not be to prevent the "I hid the gun in the dresser, get rid of it" kind of conversations, but I have no idea. I was looking over the website for the Oklahoma County Jail but they are not very clear about policies like that.

My fancy Google-Law degree seems like there may not be a spousal right to privacy:

Link 1 (Ohio cases) :

State v. Howard (1990), 62 Ohio App 3d 910 -- Syllabus prepared by the court: "(1) A conversation between spouses is not privileged and is admissible in a criminal trial when the conversation was conducted in the presence or hearing of third parties. (2) Ohio's spousal privilege statutes protect oral communications with one's spouse intended to be private, but do not protect written communications with one's spouse, even though it is reasonably expected that the communication will remain confidential. [Also see Holtz v. Dick (1884), 42 Ohio St. 23] (3) A recording of a telephone conversation is admissible in evidence when one of the parties to the conversation has given prior consent to the recording."

In a scenario like that it seems like there might be a blanket consent that was signed by all inmates when they are booked. Speculation of course and also assumes that it was a phone conversation.

Link 2 (no idea of state specific):

When are Confidential Communications Not Privileged?

Conversations are not considered privileged if someone overhears the private conversation. For example, the doctor-patient privilege doesn¿t apply if made in the presence of a nurse, and the spousal privilege doesn't apply if the conversation takes place in the presence of another relative, like a child. In addition, spousal communication made within any jail or law enforcement building, even if you're inside a private room, is not privileged.

Marital communication is not privileged in suits between spouses, or when there is violent crime between husband and wife.

Link 3:

Essential to the marital privilege is that the communications are (1.) between a lawfully married couple; (2.) are made in private; and (3.) that the communications contain private information. Communication between wife and husband made in the course of a conspiracy to commit an unlawful act is not privileged. See State v. Doney, 114 Wis. 2d 309, 338 N.W.2d 852 (Ct. App. 1983). Thus, where a husband and wife communicate, orally and in privacy, any testimony relating to this communication by the wife would be excludable if the husband were to be prosecuted for an offense not related to the wife. 9 State v. Sabin, 79 Wis. 2d 302, 255 N.W.2d 320 (1977). However, the mere presence or hearing of a third person destroys the privileged nature of an otherwise "private communication" between husband and wife.

So that may fit two criteria for not being confidential. The first being a conspiracy to lie about their finances (if that is what happened or if that would be considered a crime) and the second being that the conversation was overheard by a third party (jail employee).

Disclaimer: Of course this is playing Google Law Expert, which of course doesn't mean that I know what I am talking about

Miami Herald wrote:Prosecutors said they have recordings of phone conversations between Zimmerman and his wife while Zimmerman was in jail in which they discussed moving money from a PayPal account set up to collect money for Zimmerman’s defense. But Zimmerman’s wife testified at her husband’s bond hearing that she was unaware of any additional money available for her husband’s defense — what prosecutors now call a lie.

AustonT wrote:
and we never even got to the part of discussing whether he should be called back from bond just because he had recieved donations for his defense. Those donations weren't for his bond so the judge could demand more money, it was for his defense. If the an organization like the ACLU or NRA set up a fund to defend some random dude would that fund be subject to the bond hearing? Or are those contributions considered income and personally accessible by a murder suspect.

AustonT wrote:Those donations weren't for his bond so the judge could demand more money, it was for his defense. If the an organization like the ACLU or NRA set up a fund to defend some random dude would that fund be subject to the bond hearing? Or are those contributions considered income and personally accessible by a murder suspect.

CNN 27 APR 2012 wrote:
George Zimmerman, the neighborhood watch volunteer accused of wrongly killing Trayvon Martin, will not immediately have to turn over donations made to his website, a Florida judge said Friday.

Zimmerman collected about $204,000 in donations through the website, but did not disclose the contributions during his bond hearing last week, according to his attorney, Mark O'Mara. Prosecutors had asked for a bond of $1 million, but Judge Kenneth Lester Jr. made it $150,000 after Zimmerman's family testified they did not have the resources necessary to meet the higher level.

Assistant State Attorney Bernie de la Rionda on Friday asked Lester to increase the bond in light of the donations. But the judge said he would delay ruling on the request, in part because he does not know if he has authority to say how the money can be used.

Lester and O'Mara both said they are concerned about releasing the names of donors to Zimmerman, who has faced threats since the case began making national headlines in March.

Zimmerman, 28, was released Monday on $150,000 bail, 10% of which was put up to secure his release while he awaits trial on a second-degree murder charge in Martin's February 26 death.

About $5,000 from the website contribution was used in making bond, O'Mara said. The rest came from a loan secured by a family home.

Although Zimmerman spent some of the contributions on living expenses, about $150,000 remains, O'Mara said Friday. O'Mara said he has put the money into a trust he controls until a final decision is made about its use.

Lester asked for additional information about the accounts but did not indicate when he would rule.

"I'm not going to make a snap decision," the judge said.

Also during Friday's hearing, Lester declined to consider a gag order requested by prosecutors, saying it was premature and that none of the attorneys in the case had said anything to concern him so far. CNN was among the media organizations opposing the motion.

O'Mara said he learned about the money this week as he and Zimmerman were trying to shut down Zimmerman's website, Facebook page and Twitter account to avoid concerns about possible impersonators and other problems.

"He asked me what to do with his PayPal accounts, and I asked him what he was talking about," O'Mara told CNN's Anderson Cooper on Thursday. "He said those were the accounts that had the money from the website he had. And there was about ... $204,000 that had come in to date."
http://articles.cnn.com/2012-04-27/justice/justice_florida-zimmerman-money_1_judge-delays-decision-website-gag-order?_s=PM:JUSTICE

Ouze wrote:
So far as talking on the phone, the spouse can't be compelled to testify against him, but otherwise it's fair game. His lawyer must have told him every single conversation he had while incarcerated is essentially a public, admissible conversation in front of the prosecutor, with the sole exception of speaking with his lawyer.

AustonT wrote:Honestly Zimmerman's credibility was gak the second he put a whole in another person. The fact that he is a lying conniving SOB is just icing on the cake. No, his greatest asset isn't and won't be his credibility he can sell that down the river all he wants. It will be his defense's willingness to villify TM and the possible testimony of witnesses that will win him the day.

Ouze wrote:

AustonT wrote:Honestly Zimmerman's credibility was gak the second he put a whole in another person. The fact that he is a lying conniving SOB is just icing on the cake. No, his greatest asset isn't and won't be his credibility he can sell that down the river all he wants. It will be his defense's willingness to villify TM and the possible testimony of witnesses that will win him the day.

I'm not sure they need to even vilify TM. Truthfully I think his conviction is pretty unlikely just because it won't be difficult to argue a reasonable doubt. My feeling is, OJ style, he skates on criminal charges and gets hit on some civil or federal ones later.

Melissia wrote:You might be surprised.

d-usa wrote:

Ouze wrote:
So far as talking on the phone, the spouse can't be compelled to testify against him, but otherwise it's fair game. His lawyer must have told him every single conversation he had while incarcerated is essentially a public, admissible conversation in front of the prosecutor, with the sole exception of speaking with his lawyer.

Probably why he spoke in code. Which of course makes his credibility even more of a target.

AustonT wrote:I thought communication between a husband and wife were privileged. Especially were neither spouse has been convicted.

CT GAMER wrote:And yet people will continue to make excuses for this lying, murdering, piece of garbage...

biccat wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:And yet people will continue to make excuses for this lying, murdering, piece of garbage...

Killing a kid while getting his head beaten into the concrete by said kid who still had some drugs pot in his system at the time.