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
Re: #3, application of the law seems kind of capricious though Ms. Alexander’s own poor planning may be to blame. If she had just shot and killed her husband instead of firing at the ceiling to scare him off she might not have ended up in all this trouble.
No one hurt, yet Marissa Alexander faces 25 years in prison for “Standing Her Ground” in Florida?
http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/11965883-no-one-hurt-yet-marissa-alexander-faces-25-yrs-in-prison-for-standing-her-ground-in-florida
By the way, I suspect the time and date on the phone and photo are correct, but not at all for the reason that Gene shits out.
“Gene H.
1, April 22, 2012 at 12:04 am
Malisha,
“And how do we know that the cell phone’s date stamp cannot be changed”
Technically speaking? It suppose it is theoretically possible to change it, but to do so would require hacking into the cell company’s NOC and resetting the time/date, but that would affect every phone on that segment of the network. It would also draw a lot of attention in the NOC. I’d say the chance of it being changed approaches zero. One of my jobs after I left law was for a major cell phone company. Synchronization is critical to making the phones and the GPS functions work properly. For that reason, it is as OS says; cellphone time and date information is generated by the network.”
As usual, listening to Gene Howington is always the wrong thing to do.
NEVER EVER BELIEVE WHAT GENE HOWINGTON TELLS YOU.
The guy is a total idiot.
http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/how-to-set-the-date-and-time-on-your-iphone0.html
How to Set the Date and Time on Your iPhone
You can set the date and time on your iPhone. The time on your iPhone can be reported in a 12- or 24-hour format.
In most cases, the time is reported as 11:32 p.m. But if you prefer military time, it can be reported as 23:32. Just tap the 24-Hour Time setting (under Date & Time) so that it is On, if military time is your preference.
This is just one of the settings you can adjust under Date & Time. You can also have the iPhone set the time automatically using the time reported by the cellular network. Obviously, letting the iPhone find the time, itself, is less work for you (the iPhone will even adjust the time if you are traveling and change time zones).
If it is turned off, you’ll be asked to choose the time zone and set the date and time manually. Here’s how:
Tap Set Automatically so that it is Off.
You see fields for setting the time zone and the date and time.
Tap the Time Zone field so that the current time zone and virtual keyboard are shown.
Tap out the letters of the city or country whose time zone you want to enter until the one you have in mind appears. Then tap the name of that city or country.
The time zone is automatically filled in for that city.
Tap the Set Date & Time field so that the time is shown. Then roll the bicycle lock–like controls until the proper time is displayed.
Tap the date shown so that the bicycle lock–like controls pop up for the date. Then roll the wheels for the month, day, and year until the correct date appears.
Tap the Date & Time button to return to the main Date & Time settings screen.
Malisha, I am trying to wrap my head around what happened in those few minutes. According to the police report, Officer Smith responded at 1717 (7:17PM) to the shooting scene. At 1719:07, we know that Zimmerman was on the phone while getting his picture taken. CBS has a timeline on their web page, but it is off by several minutes from the official police report, since CBS is reporting the shooting took place at 7:25 PM. I think the only thing we can know for certain is that the time stamp on the photo is correct. A blogger uploaded the official SPD report in PDF form, and here it is.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/87828890/Sanford-FL-police-report-on-Trayvon-Martin
I see far more questions than answers at this point. This is one of those cases I wish I could work on. I live for this kind of stuff.
beccs, thanks so so much. I find myself thinking about this case a lot, even when I’m not on-line. I value other people’s opinions, even if they oppose mine, and even when they call me a silly bunt or whatever it was. I think this is because the Trayvon Martin case is not really about this guy who shot this kid and almost walked away from it without even a charge, it’s about the way our law enforcement system, and even our court system, is short-changing us in this country, and how that is affecting ever piece of our lives, how it is depriving us of our very real life interest in justice accessible and justice even as a strived-for but always available quality. I think about the lawyer who represented Dred Scott in one of the stages of his famous legal fight for freedom. I have forgotten that lawyer’s name — no time now to refresh my research, but he was a guy from New England who had had a personal bad experience with the law that just shook him to his foundation. He had married a woman and he and she were in love; her parents opposed the marriage. AFTER THE MARRIAGE TOOK PLACE and they were something like a month or two into it, her parents got her to move back in with them and THEY sued to annul the marriage. He opposed it and all the law and facts were on his side but they were more powerful and they won and his marriage was annulled right out from under him. Something made him travel south and get into the slave suits. He took on Dred Scott’s lawsuit, pro bono, and he worked on it with a passion born of trying to redeem the law in the eyes of the lawyer. (Well that didn’t work out.) I wrote a play about the Dred Scott case for children and produced it in an inner city school in DC. You should have seen those kids, portraying this lawyer, all the other characters. They were grappling with the great ideas of our time. OUR TIME. The kid who played Chief Justice Taney as he delivered the shameful decision brought down that gavel and the little substandard auditorium in that no-frills school building went utterly silent. Witnesses to history. I think this case means to me: There must be accountability.
There MUST be accountability.
Wow! I may not have anything to add. It seems as though Malisha has articulated every feeling, suspicion and opinion that I have about this case.. Only stated more concisely and eloquently. Kudos!
Malisha,
“And how do we know that the cell phone’s date stamp cannot be changed”
Technically speaking? It suppose it is theoretically possible to change it, but to do so would require hacking into the cell company’s NOC and resetting the time/date, but that would affect every phone on that segment of the network. It would also draw a lot of attention in the NOC. I’d say the chance of it being changed approaches zero. One of my jobs after I left law was for a major cell phone company. Synchronization is critical to making the phones and the GPS functions work properly. For that reason, it is as OS says; cellphone time and date information is generated by the network.
Malisha, as Gene just said, it gets curiouser and curiouser. I doubt the time stamp is inaccurate, since changing the time and date on a cell phone photo would take more technological expertise than the average person can muster. There is a lot of difference between spoofing the time stamp on an email and embedded data in a photograph. Also, many people do not realize that information is hidden in the picture.
I don’t get it. Somebody was taking that picture before the police arrived but then left when or before Officer Smith showed up? Or is there a record of exactly when Smith showed up, which is proven to be BEFORE the date stamp on the picture? And how do we know that the cell phone’s date stamp cannot be changed, if it was not an official police picture that was taken. My son once showed me how to send an e-mail dated way back when Nostradamus was making his predictions; in that e-mail, my son wrote to me that Nostradamus had predicted that Al Gore would invent the Internet. Etc.
OS,
“[A]s more forensic evidence comes out, this case becomes more convoluted. Answer one question and generate three more.”
Which to me only confirms that a trial was merited in the first place. Whenever I see answers generating more questions than solutions, it always brings up the words of Alice upon eating the cake. “Curiouser and curiouser.”
Gene, as more forensic evidence comes out, this case becomes more convoluted. Answer one question and generate three more. The sequence of events that evening leaves many unanswered questions. People tend to forget there are embedded data in every digital photograph. Also, a cell phone keeps accurate time because it is hooked to the network, unlike a regular camera you have to program yourself.
Just let me add that when an officer comes to a shooting scene, the very first action taken is to secure the shooter’s weapon(s) and to place the suspect in handcuffs. That is SOP for every law enforcement agency with whom I have worked over the past forty years. No exceptions. Secure the weapon first then place the suspect in custody before you do anything else. After that there is time to take pictures and call the ambulance.
That is interesting, OS.
Now this is interesting. Here is a close up of the famous photo with the brightness cranked up just a bit. That is clearly grass in the background, meaning that Zimmerman is either squatting down or bent over to have his photo made. He is not in handcuffs but is clearly talking on a cell phone.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jeandodge/6954519086/in/photostream/
It gets more interesting. The embedded time stamp on the photo shows it to be taken about three minutes after the shooting. Lessee now. Somebody takes his picture with an iPhone only three minutes after the shooting. Who is checking on Trayvon’s condition? Anyone? Time to take a picture though. And who took the picture? Officer Timothy Smith is the only one who is reportedly on the scene at that time according to the police report. Here is a screenshot of the embedded time stamp:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jeandodge/6954519102/sizes/l/in/photostream/
Either the SPD report is wrong or Timothy Smith is wrong. They cannot have it both ways.
The degree of certitude from both sides of this case is alarming. Very little verifiable evidence has been made public but those on both sides have made decisions as if they inhabited Zimmerman and Martins minds before the shooting. The media has allowed BOTH sides to leak questionable information and present it as fact. Leaping to conclusions based on speculation and questionable information is anathema to our system of justice.
There is an important issue that has not been brought out, about the difference between the McNeil/Epp case (State of Georgia versus McNeil) and the Zimmerman/Martin case (State of Florida versus Zimmerman).
The difference lies in the facts.
By the way, before I start discussing this, I think McNeil had a much better case of self-defense than Zimmerman could ever have, because Epp was NOT UNARMED when McNeil shot him. He had a knife on him and he had already threatened McNeil’s son with that very knife, and McNeil had already phoned 911 and told the police that Epp had threatened his son with a knife and was ON HIS PROPERTY (McNeil’s property) at the time of this threat.
But the differences.
McNeil knew Epp *BUT* Zimmerman did not know Martin
McNeil heard, and believed, that Epp had threatened his son with great bodily harm, with a KNIFE, a few minutes before the shooting. *BUT* Zimmerman had never heard anything negative about Martin before the shooting.
McNeill phoned 911 and told the police Epp had come to his (McNeil’s) property and when asked to leave, had threatened his son with a knife. *BUT* Zimmerman’s only complaint to the police against Martin was that he was “running” and would “get away.”
McNeill pulled his gun and got out of his car. At this point, Epp was on the neighbor’s property, not on McNeil’s property, and McNeill did not advance onto the neighbor’s property in pursuit of Epp. *BUT* Zimmerman DID advance on Martin and he told the police he WAS advancing on Martin.
McNeil aimed his gun at the ground and fired a warning shot, verbally telling Epp, who was approaching him, “Stop; I’m not fooling around.” *BUT* No impartial eye-witness has yet made any allegation that they saw or heard Martin advance on Zimmerman.
McNeil already knew that Epp was armed. *BUT* Zimmerman has already admitted that he did not have any knowledge that Martin was armed.
McNeill already knew that Epp had a reputation for “making trouble” and for violence, at least threatened violence, when Epp advanced on him on HIS OWN PROPERTY. *BUT* Neither was Martin on Zimmerman’s property nor did Zimmerman have any knowledge of Martin that would lead him to believe either that he could be violent or that he was armed.
STILL, McNeil was convicted and that conviction was upheld on appeal!
Now here is what the dissenting judge (with whom I think I agree) said:
“McNeil’s call to 911 reporting that Epp had pulled a knife on his son supports the veracity of [the son’s] and McNeil’s testimony. Significantly, the police did find a knife in Epp’s right pocket. Further supporting the testimony of McNeil, his son, and [a neighbor who watched the whole thing] that Epp was the aggressor was the testimony of [two other witnesses] to the effect that Epp had behaved in an extremely aggressive and inappropriate manner toward them concerning problems with Epp’s work on their house. Although the State had the burden to disprove self-defense, the State did not offer any evidence to rebut McNeil’s evidence that Epp was the aggressor, that Epp came onto McNeil’s property from a neighbor’s yard despite being told previously that he did not have permission to do so, that McNeil knew that Epp had threatened to stab his son moments earlier, and that Epp had a knife on his person when he charged McNeil. In fact, the only witness called by the State who actually saw the shooting…gave testimony that actually supported McNeil’s evidence that Epp was the aggressor.
And that was the DISSENT. The two judges who voted to uphold the conviction knew all these facts, but still, supported the murder charge, and McNeil sits in the Georgia prison.
These cases are only comparable because a man with a gun shot another man and they both claimed self-defense. The evidence in the McNeil case from Georgia actually does support a claim of self-defense, and witnesses to the actual event backed that up. In the Zimmerman case, the witness who is claiming self-defense is the shooter himself, who has what I would call a very good reason for bending the truth in his own favor.
@eniobob, re: John McNeil and Stand Your Ground, see Radley Balko John McNeil
Assuming the details here are accurate, this case is an outrage.
…
Apparently, Epp had threatened others as well. Here’s the Georgia Supreme Court decision.
If the Trayvon Martin case causes more journalists to go looking for these sorts of outrages, that’s a good thing. But I really wish Salon hadn’t framed the story the way it did. The author uses the Trayvon Martin case as a hook, and tries to to use McNeil’s conviction to criticize Stand Your Ground laws. There are a couple of problems with that. First, Georgia’s Stand Your Ground law was passed in 2006. McNeil shot Epp in 2005. So I’m fairly sure the law wouldn’t have applied, although as I understand it, McNeil should still have had Georgia case law on his side. The subhead is also misleading. If he is ultimately convicted of second-degree murder, Zimmerman could be sentenced to life in prison, just as McNeil was.
But even if Georgia’s Stand Your Ground law had already been effect, if McNeil wasn’t granted that defense or a traditional self-defense claim because of his race, class, or some other unjust reason, none of that is a convincing critique of the law. It’s a convincing critique of the criminal justice system.
From the facts in the opinion, I’d say McNeil not only should have been acquitted on traditional self-defense laws, he should never have been charged in the first place. (That was also the opinion of the lead investigator.) But trying to shoehorn this case into a narrative that allows for comparisons to the Martin case doesn’t do John McNeil any favors. I’m not sure it really helps the cause of those calling for Zimmerman’s head, either. For example, the Salon piece suggests that McNeil’s prosecutor may have filed the murder charge after caving to public pressure. That’s what Zimmerman’s defenders say is also happening to him.* Epp’s prior history of threatening people plays into McNeil’s favor—but if we’re comparing the two cases, then it would also seem appropriate to look into Martin’s history, which Martin’s supporters have decried as smearing the victim.
The unfortunate framing aside, this is still a story that deserves more attention, and one that the gun rights crowd should be all over—and really should have been all over from the start.
(*Just to be clear, I don’t endorse or reject this view. I’m inclined to agree with Jonathan Turley that based on the information that has been made public, a second-degree murder is excessive. But we don’t yet know what evidence the special prosecutor has seen that hasn’t yet been made public. We’ll find out soon enough.)
Oh, and one more thing, on the subject of Robert Zimmerman Senior: when he was first mentioned I went to the State Bar of Virginia website and just checked in to see if he was licensed to practice law in Virginia, and what his contact information was. He was not listed. This does not mean that he is no longer licensed in Virginia; it is not an exhaustive list, and the disclaimer is right there on the website. But I wanted to know where he had been a Magistrate Judge. I couldn’t find that out from the State Bar website. I later found out that he had been a Magistrate Judge in or around Manassas, VA.
BettyKath, in Virginia, Magistrate judges perform a peculiar function. I don’t know if this is because Virginia is still a commonwealt instead of a state, or what the issues are, but here’s what I understand.
A person can go to the police and report what they think is a crime. Usually, if this happens, unless the police SAW the crime, the police will first INVESTIGATE to see if they think a crime has actually been committed. So if a woman calls the police and says, “my boyfriend raped me last night,” the police will not just give her a form that she fills out and then draw a felony warrant for rape and go arrest the guy; they will take her statement, make her swear to it under oath, and then do an investigation. In this particular case, they might, say, contact the boyfriend and ask him if he had a girlfriend, what her name was, when he last had sex with her, whether it was consensual sex, blah blah blah. Then they might draw a felony warrant. They might not. They might give it to the prosecutor’s office to decide. There might be further investigation. I don’t know how that works. But there is some sort of a process and there are various kinds of procedures based on various kinds of cases. There are probably 100 different things that could happen before a felony warrant is drawn.
In Virginia, a Magistrate Judge can draw a warrant without much investigation. A person can appear before him with a police officer, and give his story, and the Magistrate Judge can decide to issue the felony warrant, just like that. Sometimes, there is not even a written record of the complaining witness’s statement! Just such a warrant was drawn against me by an angry ex-husband on December 2, 1982 in front of a Magistrate Judge in Arlington, Virginia at 10:00 p.m. (note the courts were not open) and the warrant was then handed to a police officer to serve on me. This police officer looked at the thing, thought (probably), “something’s strange about this warrant” and she brought it to the prosecutor, Helen F. Fahey of Arlington, VA. Fahey agreed that the warrant was bogus and she took it and instructed the officer not to try to serve it. The warrant had some police notes associated with it saying that the police had contacted the complaining witness AFTER the warrant was drawn, hoping that he could help them figure out what was actually going on, but he “did not want to cooperate with the officers.” So he had gotten the warrant drawn for some purpose other than getting the warrant served and getting the alleged crime prosecuted in a court of law. Hmmmmmm… When I tried to find out what had been said to the Magistrate Judge to make him draw the bogus warrant, I hit a dead end. He had retired (as has Zimmerman’s father) and I was prevented from discovering any underlying documentation or evidence. Yet no warrant was drawn against my ex-husband for making a false report to the police, for forgery, for perjury, or for any of the other obvious problems that arise in a scenario such as this. Only 20+ years after the fact did I discover that the warrant was quietly withdrawn after it had served its purpose — which was to gain advantage in a civil case.
So what a Magistrate judge is in Virginia, probably, is a sort of mini-judge whose decisions are not subject to appeal. He wields enormous power — not in making precedent or interpreting law, but in individual lives — and does not have to be elected, does not get reviewed in higher courts, and is immune to all criticism and shielded from all censure. No reported cases ever write down what he has done; no appellate decisions ever overturn him; he operates in a kind of “star chamber” and he does what he pleases. You can’t go back over his work and clearly identify his decisions so that you can tabulate them and, perhaps, find that he issues warrants against Blacks but not whites, against women but not men, or anything like that. He is a tiny powerful potentate in his little fiefdom.
I think.
Anyway, that’s as much as I know, and I admittedly know it from a small sample. But anybody who knows more — perhaps some other retired Magistrate Judge from Virginia — educate me, please.
Maybe he could get a fair trial, a fair jury pool, in Cuba.