In the months since his arrest, Zimmerman has been held without bond in the Manhattan Criminal Court Building.
He’s also been held in solitary confinement in the Brooklyn County Jail.
The latest episode, the most recent in what is shaping up to be a long, long wait for his release, comes after an intense and expensive public scrutiny of Zimmermans case.
On Monday, his lawyers filed a motion to suppress the state’s evidence and a motion for a new trial.
They argue that because he’s been kept in solitary for more than two years, he should be entitled to a new sentencing hearing, the first step in a process of determining whether the state can get a new conviction.
“The public and the criminal justice system are entitled to the right to know how long Zimmermen has been in solitary,” said his lawyers, David Adler and Stephen Miller.
“There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in solitary.
We have a right to be heard.”
Prosecutors, however, argue that Zimmermens case is different from most others.
“This case presents an exceptional situation of an individual who has been incarcerated in solitary without the benefit of a reasonable opportunity to challenge the conditions of his confinement,” the prosecutors wrote.
The defense lawyers also point out that Zimmers trial was set for February, a month after his release from jail.
The prosecutor said that Zivermans attorneys have not been notified of the filing of the motion.
The New York Daily News reported that Zimmerer was placed in solitary in a state hospital while he was being treated for cancer.
The article also reported that his lawyers have asked for a continuance to the case, which is set to last three months.
But, the prosecution has asked the judge to block the hearing and order Zimmermann released immediately, according to the New York Post.
“We are trying to make this case very, very difficult for the defendants,” Adler said, noting that he’s heard from lawyers in multiple other states who are also seeking to block Zimmermers release.
“I think they’ve done the right thing,” he added.
“They’re trying to use this as a vehicle for their campaign.”
The prosecutor’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The case has become a key flashpoint in the ongoing fight over the use of solitary confinement and whether it violates constitutional rights.
Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that inmates who are held in isolation are not afforded the same right to a fair trial as other prisoners.
But the high-profile case has drawn criticism from both sides of the political aisle, with Republicans blasting the New Yorkers legal team for using the case to attack their candidate, and Democrats accusing the prosecution of exploiting Zimmer’s suffering and mistreatment.
The state attorney general, Eric Schneiderman, said Monday that the state is reviewing the motion, and the New Jersey legislature is expected to take up the motion in the coming days.
Zimmerms lawyers also are pursuing a motion in federal court, in which they argue that the federal government should be required to abide by the Eighth Amendment of the U,S.
Zimmers lawyers, meanwhile, have filed a new lawsuit, arguing that the U withstood a state-sponsored terrorism investigation, and that the feds should not have any say in the case.
The lawsuit has been dismissed by a judge, who dismissed a request to postpone the hearing.
The Zimmermermans’ attorneys said that the government failed to disclose the name of a witness who was part of the investigation.
In an emailed statement, Zimmers attorneys did not directly respond to the new legal filing.
But Miller, who represented Zimmermuns in his trial, said that in the past, the federal attorney general’s office had “repeatedly refused to allow us to disclose his name, even when we were subpoenaed to do so.”
“We did not do this for political reasons,” Miller said.
“In fact, we didn’t do it because we had anything to hide.”
But Adler, who represents Zimmer, said he is not surprised by the prosecutors decision.
“If it was about the political fallout from Zimmer monday, I don’t think the government would be able to do that,” he said.
“[The government] would have had to make an appeal and then we’d have to fight it again.”