Submitted by: Mike Spindell, Guest Blogger
At this point, to be honest, all of the back and forth regarding “evidence” in the Zimmerman Case that has occurred here over a number of threads has been mere speculation that misses the salient issues raised by this case. The real (admissible) evidence will be presented at the trial and a hopefully an unbiased jury will make its decisions. The issues that we need to discuss from my perspective are:
1. Did the Sanford Police make a mistake in releasing Zimmerman rather quickly and allowing him to retain his gun, which was potential evidence?
2. Was there undue outside influence used upon the police to end their investigation quickly?
3. Is there a degree of probability that in many Stand Your Ground venues, had the victim been white and the protagonist of color, that the protagonist would have been immediately arrested?
4. What are the purposes of a business oriented lobbying group, like ALEC, in getting “Stand Your Ground” Laws passed?
5. Is this once again an instance where a media circus has poisoned the ability to have a fair trial?
The George Zimmerman shooting of Trayvon Martin has been marked by the typical aspects of what we have come to know as a media circus in American justice. Since this country began, when it comes to criminal justice, our free Press (Media) has found that sensationalism sells. Consequently, when a particular criminal case raises widespread public interest, the Press (Media) fans that interest beyond even the initial public interest. The process of leaking “new evidence” as the case plays out brings with it angry public debate over the significance of the leaked “evidence” and the guilt or innocence of the protagonist.
This creates an uneven public relations battle between the prosecution and the defense. I say uneven because in almost all instances the prosecution has the advantage in terms of media access and also the public’s presumption that the police/prosecution are their protectors. We have seen this occur in this particular case and quite frankly, save for the basic facts that are indisputable; none of us really know what evidence are public relations ploys to sway opinions and what facts will actually be admissible as evidence at trial. What makes this case somewhat different than others is that in this instance the original prosecutor and the Sanford P.D. actively were trying to justify their actions in releasing Zimmerman and not continuing to prosecute him. Their leaks were perhaps attempts to justify their actions. Now that the public uproar has brought in new prosecutors and investigators the leaks to the press may take on a different tone. What we don’t know, as the latest photo of the back of Zimmerman’s head illustrates, is whether the current prosecution is seeking true justice, or continuing to participate in a potential whitewash.
I would like to mention four cases that have occurred in my lifetime that show the problems encountered when sensational cases become prosecuted in the press. The first is the case of Dr. Sam Shepard, a Cleveland physician accused of murdering his wife in 1954, convicted he spent a decade in prison, only to be exonerated at a second trial:
Sheppard was brought to trial in the autumn of 1954. The case is notable for its extensive publicity and what the U.S. Supreme Court called a “carnival atmosphere.” Many have compared the O.J. Simpson trial to it, in terms of the often lurid press coverage it generated.
Some newspapers and other media in Ohio were accused of bias against Sheppard and inflammatory coverage of the case, and were criticized for immediately labeling Sheppard as the only viable suspect. Some believe that a specific headline from the Cleveland Press, “Why Isn’t Sam Sheppard in Jail?,” clearly indicated the bias of the media against Sheppard. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Sheppard
The second case I’d like to mention is that of Caryl Chessman. Chessman was executed in 1960, having been convicted in a storm of lurid publicity. The issue wasn’t Chessman’s guilt per se, but whether California’s “Little Lindbergh” law should have been applied in a case where there was no murder. The publicity and antipathy towards Chessman, who was no doubt a low life criminal, obscure the fact that he hadn’t committed murder. In fact many proponents of his death lost sight of the fact that this was not a murder case:
“Born in St. Joseph, Michigan, Caryl Chessman was a criminal with a long record who spent most of his adult life behind bars. He had been paroled a short time from prison in California when he was arrested near Los Angeles and charged with being the notorious “Red Light Bandit.” The “Bandit” would follow people in their cars to secluded areas and flash a red light that tricked them into thinking he was a police officer. When they opened their windows or exited the vehicle, he would rob and, in the case of several young women, rape them. In July 1948, Chessman was convicted on 17 counts of robbery, kidnapping, and rape, and was condemned to death.
Part of the controversy surrounding the Chessman case stems from how the death penalty was applied. At the time, under California‘s version of the “Little Lindbergh Law”, any crime that involved kidnapping with bodily harm could be considered a capital offense. Two of the counts against Chessman alleged that he dragged a 17-year-old girl named Mary Alice Meza a short distance from her car demanding oral sex from her. Despite the short distance[citation needed] the woman was moved, the court considered it sufficient to qualify as kidnapping, thus making Chessman eligible for the death penalty.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caryl_Chessman
The last two cases I want to mention are much more familiar to everyone so I’ll just include the links to each one. O.J. Simpson’s murder trial was perhaps the most publicly viewed trial in our Nation’s history. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O.J._Simpson_murder_trial . Let me first say that I never liked Simpson, either as a football player, actor or celebrity. I thought he was an overrated runner and his public persona always seemed to me to be that of a complete phony and media whore. It was surprising to me then, when the case broke that I began to develop sympathy for someone I see as a loathsome man. What bothered me about this case was that from the beginning the prosecution waged a public relations war to convince the public of O.J.’s guilt, through strategic leaking and via officials making definitive statements about his guilt to the media, prior to even his arraignment.
I watched the entire arraignment and trial on TV at work because the City Agency I worked for was being split up and for literally months I had nothing to do but sit in my large office watching the trial on TV. At night my wife and I would watch the recaps at home. Based on what I saw I feel the verdict acquitting Simpson was the correct one because a credible case for “reasonable doubt” was made. He may well have been guilty, but to me the inept prosecution had botched their case. The reader may feel differently, but I think must admit that there was a firestorm of publicity on the case that made a serious trial into a circus.
Finally, last July prior to the verdict I wrote about “Should We Care About Casey Anthony” as a guest blog: http://jonathanturley.org/2011/07/02/should-we-care-about-casey-anthony/#more-36728 . Afterwards, being retired, I watched the entire trial and truly believe that the correct verdict was also reached based on the evidence and the over charging of the case. The reader again may disagree with my judgment here, but also must admit that the media sensationalism that characterized this trial was way over the top.
In the latter two cases I think that there is some comfort to be take by the fact that the juries in each seemed to actually perform their duty and look at the evidence presented without bias. In the Sheppard Case the defendant was convicted due to the improper publicity and it took a Supreme Court verdict to help set him free. He left prison a broken ma and both his and his son’s lives were destroyed in their attempt to exonerate his name. This is somewhat less comforting. Caryl Chessman, bad human being that he was, should not have been convicted of kidnapping in the sense of the “Little Lindbergh” law, but deserved a possible life sentence for rape. The pre and post trial publicity made it impossible for California politicians to try to prevent execution.
The Zimmerman case has again raised the wrath of anger and injustice on all sides. Zimmerman has been demonized and his victim Trayvon Martin has also been demonized. Zimmerman’s trial, should he not take a plea, will be a circus raising hackles everywhere. Whatever decision that comes from it will be questioned by people whose minds have been made up via the information leaking out. In the end we will all be victims of yet another diminishment of our legal system via a process we must be very loath to rein in. Democracy and freedom cannot flourish without widespread information on public happenings. There is no one we can honestly give the power to make a decisions as to where the media crosses the line, because invariably all human decisions are ultimately self-serving.
At the outset I posed what I see to be the six salient issues to be drawn from this case, whatever the outcome at trial. I’ve avoided taking sides on these issues, though truthful disclosure by me would say that at this point I believe Zimmerman is probably guilty of some form of aggravated manslaughter, but truly what do I know more than anyone else?
As for the five questions I posed here are my own answers/opinions:
1. Did the Sanford Police make a mistake in releasing Zimmerman rather quickly and allowing him to retain his gun, which was potential evidence? Yes. To me the Police should not ever make the decision as to whether “standing one’s ground” is a viable defense. They need to collect all the evidence and present it to the prosecution. The prosecution must then present it to the court. SYG is for the court/jury to decide.
2. Was there undue outside influence used upon the police to end their investigation quickly? I believe that Zimmerman’s father played a role in trying to avoid charges against his son and that influence was used to try to make the case go away.
3. Is there a degree of probability that in many SYG venues had the victim been white and the protagonist of color, that the protagonist would have been immediately arrested? My belief is that if the shooter had been a person of color and/or what is considered a foreign ethnicity, they would have been arrested in any of those venues with a reversed situation. The only caveat is that if they were someone of wealth or connections, then they might not have been arrested.
4. What is the purpose of a business oriented lobbying group like ALEC in getting “Stand Your Ground” Laws passed? I think that ALEC has been pushing these particular laws because many large corporations employ security forces that are armed. With these laws many actions by these armed security forces would be held to be justified, thus blameless.
5. Is this once again an instance where a media circus has poisoned the ability to have a fair trial? Absolutely, as I made clear above.
What then is your opinion on these issues, taking out the guilt, or innocence of George Zimmerman?
Submitted By: Mike Spindell, guest blogger
Thank you, Mike Spindell, cogent and intellectually nourishing.
A couple of comments.
I have always said, among my friends and my intellectual confidants (not always the same individuals) that I believe the cover-up is worse than the crime. In this case, that assertion comes to mind in a way that most people following the news can appreciate. My semi-educated guess is that Zimmerman was out looking for trouble (as Curtis Sliwa has said, in his own inimitable way) that evening and he found it. This would be a psychological conclusion, of course, and whether it’s relevant or not is another question. But my next semi-educated guess is that when he first set eyes on Trayvon Martin, he knew that he wanted to end the evening having put his FOOT squarely on Martin’s NECK — in the figurative sense, of course (he may have done it later in the physical sense; we have no witness to date). Whatever his personal motivations were, from the time he phoned into the cops that he had spied a “suspicious” “asshole,” he had it in for Trayvon Martin. I don’t think he necessarily formed an intent to kill Martin at that point in the encounter. I do think he wanted to DEFEAT Trayvon Martin that evening and that it was a very compelling desire — perhaps crossing over the line into a COMPULSION.
Perhaps from that point forward, Zimmerman did not plan out his acts. Certainly, his acts did not occur in a vacuum so even if he had planned them out, they did not necessarily (and almost certainly NOT) take place in accordance with his actual plans.
But from the moment that other people heard and saw things, another scene is playing out. A cover-up is playing out.
The cops DID have time to plan out what they did, and were NOT under compulsion, and had job descriptions and protocols and standardized procedures that they were required by law to follow and they are paid by the public; these are not optional; they are not volunteers.
The area became a crime scene as soon as Zimmerman got out of his car. He was not responsible to report everything that was present in the crime scene; the police were; the EMTs were. The witnesses gave statements to the press indicating that the police either refused to speak with them about their information after 2/26/2012 or actually tried to make them change their statements as to what had occurred. Did Zimmerman and his father take part in this? Probably, but that doesn’t really matter because neither Zimmerman nor his father has any responsibility to the State of Florida and neither of them draws a salary from the People of the State of Florida.
The police, the EMTs, Wolfinger, et al. did things that would have remained completely unknown to the public had there not been a media circus. And these things are much much MORE IMPORTANT than what Zimmerman did (and I say this with a very heavy heart and with a sincere apology to Martin’s family and to all people who feel emotionally related, by this incident, to Trayvon Martin’s actual death at Zimmerman’s hands) to one victim that night. These things are really the crux of the case, to me. Why? Because regardless of the results of this killing, we have to go forward living, and we as a country go forward living, and we still have these living limbs: police, prosecutors, press, public. We still have these living limbs. If they are gangrenous, we cannot cut them off! We still have these living limbs and we must treat them if they are gangrenous! HOW?
Adolph Hitler, I believe, murdered his neice Gelli. I may have her name wrong. Nobody did anything to him about this act. It was put down officially as a suicide. AFTER that happened, he went on to become the person we now compare all of our despised enemies to. [GRAMMAR POLICE!] OK? It is an extreme example, I admit. But the principle I am highlighting is the principle that still applies in thousands of situations. Zimmerman should have been tested and arrested on 2/26/2012; the prosecutor should not have covered up the crime; if Zimmerman actually did kill in self-defense (and from the fact situation it seems incredible to imagine that he did, unless one agrees that he was entitled to defend himself lethally against bad feelings), he could have been acquitted after being charged; all statements from witnesses should have been taken; photographs should have carefully recorded the entire crime scene; Zimmerman’s car should have been impounded and searched; all the forensics should have been done to determine to the extent possible what actually happened that night; etc. etc. etc.
The fact that ONLY THE PRESS was able to draw enough attention to this cover-up to force a late, possibly lame, certainly suspect and probably flawed prosecution is a sad fact. One would have hoped that a prosecutor like Wolfinger would have said, “Guys, I know we all really don’t want to see this poor guy prosecuted but we really need to stick to the law and not let our office become besmirched with allegations of a racially motivated scandal,” or words to that effect (better words to that same effect, I would hope). But no.
Because of the nature of the cover-up, the nature of the media circus was almost unavoidable. The only alternative, in my opinion, would have been that the cover-up went silently into the great computer in the sky that would program the next cover-up and the next and the next and the next so that no Trayvon would ever be safe, and no prosecutor would ever need to serve the actual written law of the state that wrote it. This would return us to pre-1871 status in due time and the time was probably just about due when Reverend Sharpton (I don’t like him either, but hey, any port in a storm) stepped in and turned up the volume.
Enemy of my enemy is my friend. Whoever opposes and brings to light a government corruption-backed cover-up the size and nature of this one has my thanks. I just hope the feds don’t mess it up; I just hope we get some treatment for that gangrene; we still have a substantial something to save in this country.
Interesting questions, but what of the other side of the coin: questions about whether the prosecutor who brought charges was motivated politics (or any other improper reason). Although not mutually exclusive, if the answers to Mr. Spindell’s first two questions are “no,” then that increases the likelihood that the answers to these corollary questions are “yes.”
I’ll admit that I’m not sure what “of color” means. But I assume that Mr. Zimmerman, as a Hispanic, would meet that description.
Mike, Good post. I agree with your answers.
btw, is a magistrate the same as a judge? I guess not since they have different titles. Is it scope of what they hear that differentiates? or is it just a jurisdictional distinction?
” I’m sure one reason is because they have no desire to be the ringmaster in the circus this has already become.”
not as I understood what I read. The second in line declined because of close relations to O’Mara, the defense lawyer. From the first moment I saw him, it felt this was a very good choice. He may even win an acquittal, due to the many mistakes made. Not only was the gun not examined, it would also be nice to have a detailed report about GZ’s injuries done immediately after he was taken to the police.
For me–emotionally– this case can’t be compared to any of the cases you write about. Let me pick O.J.Simpson. I was never interested to take a closer look. Misjudgements is a much larger issue. But this case contains something deeply personal to me, maybe to others?
It is is something deeply personal and at the same time universal. I do have problems with people that judge easily, that like everyone to conform to their rigid rules of normality, with everything outside of this frame being bad or evil. Often this type of people demand strict conformance to what they consider “the right” rules. I do perceive the GZ of the 911 call on this side. Not one thing he tells us shows what makes this “real suspicious guy” suspicious, other than he knows, he doesn’t live there, walks in the rain and looks about, or more precisely at the houses. I would like to know much more about him, than I ever will. …
The restrained George Zimmerman, who apologized to the parents, while suggesting that Trayvon appeared close to his own age and he couldn’t be sure he wasn’t armed, was interesting to watch. He even lost his composure for a second when De la Rionda confronted him with text messages he sent, one commenting on Trayvon’s father. It’s not easy to find a video of his whole statement at the bond hearing on the web anymore. I found it shortly after the hearing ended, but unfortunately did not safe the link. But at that point it seemed he didn’t guard his mime carefully for one second. There was a sign of surprise and then his eyes turned inward as if to search his mind for what text messages could be meant.
Somehow it feels that Zimmerman will be acquitted. If he is guilty and I think he is more than Trayvon, he now can plan his story as close to the real story as possible. It’s obviously really hard to imagine a scenario in which Zimmerman could have honestly felt threatened that is unrelated to his preconceptions easily deductible from his 911 calls. It’s much easier to deduct any other story. My stories change, maybe I write my favorite one in the end, while waiting for the trail, that will not satisfy our curiosity anyway.
One tiny note about TM’s girl friend, she must feel terribly guilty. “Did my last phone call kept him from reaching the back door in time? Did it make him stop and slow down?”
This media storm in the ZIMMERMAN case was slow to get started, and then carefully fanned by WESH TV, the same media outlet that brought us the Casey Anthony debacle. ZIMMERMAN will be blown out of proportion into a raging bonfire before it is all over. Once again WESH has an opportunity to educate its local viewership about the likelihood of a NOT GUILTY verdict based on the horrible SYG law but it is not looking like that is going to happen anytime soon.
I live in the WESH broadcast area and have watched WESH as my primary TV news source for years. In the last 24 hours WESH broadcasters have openly characterized Zimmerman as a murderer, without using the word “alleged” or “suspected” or even “accused.” The news feed on this case is broadcast across the entire NBC TV network.
Before the Casey Anthony Verdict was returned WESH TV never published any independent legal professional opinions that there was likelihood of a Not guilty verdict because of the lack of sufficient evidence. WESH’s failure to do so led to a massive public outcry against the 12 jurors who had done their duty. WESH lost the opportunity as a Trustee of the public airways to educate its viewing audience on the reasons why the jury might vote in favor of Casey Anthony. What’s more is WESH threw the legal system under the bus rather than fulfill its duty as a trustee and educate its viewing audience about why there was a possible NOT GUILTY verdict in the pipeline and why it was coming. Or after the Verdict, explaining calmly and carefully how that could be explained.
Why did not WESH do that? Because it would have de-sensationalised the Anthony case, leading to a loss in viewership and therefore less revenue.
Advertising dollars is based on viewership. The more viewers watch WESH the more it can charge its advertisers.
Five law professors at the University of Florida Levin college of law have made themselves available to assist media in understanding the legal issues in the SYG law, which are very complex. Their expertise is notable for the scope and depth of the issues involved. By the day ZIMMERMAN was charged with second degree murder more than 100 media outlets had sought their collective advice. But Not WESH TV. See: http://www.law.ufl.edu/news/2012/03/20/uf-law-criminal-law-experts-available-to-address-trayvon-martin-case/
Given the nationwide interest in the ZIMMERMAN case one would hope WESH TV will take advantage of the unbaised legal input from the College Profs and this time around actually prepare the public for an eye opening understanding of the ugly SYG law. If not, its duty as a public trustee will again have been breached.
Well done Mike. I agree completely that if the roles were reversed, the media would not have been involved and Trayvon would have been arrested on the spot and would still be in jail.
“Duke Lacrose, Tawana Brawley.” ‘hear, hear’ !!
” 3. Is there a degree of probability that in many Stand Your Ground venues, had the victim been white and the protagonist of color, that the protagonist would have been immediately arrested?”
http://www.salon.com/2012/04/11/when_stand_your_ground_fails/singleton/
http://www.thegrio.com/politics/sentence-commuted-for-black-man-who-killed-white-teen.php
I agree with your assessment on this case. My concerns have included the loss of vital forensic evidence as well as undue influence from Zimmerman’s father and his cronies. As I write this, three judges have already declined to hear this case. I’m sure one reason is because they have no desire to be the ringmaster in the circus this has already become. Will justice ever be served in this case? I have my doubts.
The fact is that the police did NOT hand Z his gun as he left. They did what all police do which is to keep it as evidence. There was influence in the form of the DA who TOLD the cops to let him go, under I presume the Stand Your Ground law which sets a very low standard for proof of self-defense.
There is one question that has not been asked. Is it legal and/or right for a person engaged in a fist fight to pull a gun and kill the other person if the shooter is losing the fight? We DO know that Zimmerman was NOT the one calling for help, so we can infer that it more than likely was Trayvon when he saw the gun. As to who started the fight, it is without question Zimmerman since it was HE who was stalking Trayvon, NOT the other way around. There is NO possible way to say that Zimmerman’s actions in a deserted area in the dark and clearly targeting Trayvon was innocent or not offensive. It thus is irrelevant who hit first or who was winning.
Subscribe
Will the jurors chosen for the Zimmerman trial even be capable of acquitting him?
Jurors will all be aware of the immense publicity in the case, and can be certain that their identities will be public during or immediately after trial.
Everyone is aware that the nation is highly emotionally charged and polarized in their opinions of the case.
Jurors will also be aware of numerous and credible death threats against Zimmerman and his family.
Jurors may fear that acquitting Zimmerman will put their own safety at risk.
This dynamic is one that Zimmernan will have to evaluate in considering a bench trial instead of a jury trial.
Watching the two and a half hour bond hearing I began to feel sympathy for George Zimmerman. None of us will ever know what happened but we know from Zimmerman’s own confession he shot and killed Trayvon Martin.
He’s admitted guilt. Is it murder…. I don’t know.
As for the questions.
1. Yes the Sanford PD made a mistake in releasing him. Especially when the police who responded recommended manslaughter. To release him with his gun which is evidence is egregious and shows a clear bias on the part of police.
2. Yes. His father is a judge. There was influence like a mother****** to make sure this all went away.
3. There is no degree of possibility it is a truth that in stand your ground cases when the shooter is black and the victim white the shooter is always guilty. Look at Trevor Dooley and Marissa Alexander. This goes to show the law itself is inherently flawed. Using deadly force when in fear of your life or to prevent a crime is so ambiguous and vague that it allows for law enforcement to arrest and prosecute based on opinion and not facts or evidence in the case.
4. Everyone has a lobby to see the issues they support get passed. This one is about gun laws just like the NRA. The only ones that don’t have a lobby and need one are the poor and disenfranchised.
5. Yes. Between that and the racial elements yes.n
Excellent post mike……
I appreciate this topic today and the fine manner in which the situation is articulated. The other day I made some comments on here to the effect that once Z was charged with the crime it was time to stop ballyhooing for his head. I think that a fairly selected jury will acquit him based on what we in the public know about the evidence. One point I would like to make. When they show perpetrators of crimes or joint venturers in street fights which end up with one side getting killed, the media seldom shows photos of the one who ends up being a defendant in a good light. In this case they are showing the so called victim in his childhood photo. I suppose they could show Z in his childhood photo. Why do they show Charles Manson with his swatika on his forehead. Why not a childhood photo? Some of the folks who comment on this blog have been making the travon kid out to be a mere baby. There is some state out there this week in the news prosecuting a twelve year old for murder. The mobs in Zambia are made up of 14 year olds. Gangs across America contain 17 year old males who beat, rape, rob and kill. Being 17 in America is not being 7. It is likely that Trayvon had Zimmerman on his back beating Z’s head on the pavement when Z’s gun went off. That ain’t second degree murder in any county, redneck or not, in the United States of America. This defendant is going to be acquitted. I hope he can get a jury of his peers untainted by all the bs.
Duke Lacrose, Tawana Brawley.
Or Prop 184/aka: Three Strikes, after Kimber Reynolds and Polly Klaas. Not necessarily named after them, but their names certainly became synonymous with Three Strikes.
I do not live in Florida and will not be on the jury. Thus, I do not have to adhere to “guilty until proven innocent.” I think Zimmerman deserves to be in jail for chasing down an unarmed man and shooting him to death. He did wrong and should be punished. I probably would show me some leniency in the sentencing because he doesn’t strike me as someone who has a desire to go out and murder lots of people. I also do not plan to follow the trial. I am retired and want to relax and spend time with my kitties and my niece and grandniece.
Mercy is a thing you can’t touch, love, kindness, meekness, humility are the positive characteristics of Jesus. that cannot be touched. God is all of them that you can’t touch. Man did not make them, but they exist.. Because they exist God exists too. God is the one who Condemns on the last day. In this life whoever does not condemn will reap an eternal; reward.
We have to leave it in Gods hands. Having Zimmerman pay a fine or give him jail time does not make the ones giving it godly.
Harvey Silverglate: “Few American institutions best the Congress in the destructive practice of turning a human tragedy into an assault on liberty.”
Jeralyn Merritt: “Crime Laws Named After People Are Generally Bad Ideas [Laws]”
Radley Balko, Senior Editor of Reason, takes on one of my pet peeves in an interview in the Atlantic: crime laws named after individuals. He says (linking to this TChris Post):
Here’s a pretty good rule of thumb: If you’re naming a piece of crime legislation after a crime victim, it’s probably a bad law. It means you’re legislating out of anger, or in reaction to public anger over a specific incident. That’s generally not how good policy is made.
Or, as I like to put it, Let us not enact laws out of grief and passion, or in response to a singular criminal event, however horrific it might be. Cooler heads are needed where our fundamental liberties are at stake. Examples: The Laci and Connor Law. Megan’s Law. The Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act.
I’m also not thrilled with Attorney General Eric Holder’s proposal today for a federal hate crimes law, for reasons well noted by Colorado Independent.
Salon: Long time coming: Trayvon’s law
For the first time in a decade, Congress holds a hearing on anti-profiling legislation
By Jefferson Morley