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
I was aware, I put it really too vaguely. Sorry!
OS, I am aware I put it really too vague. I was almost writing I take back the question above.
I don’t trust eyewitness John. He seems to have changed his story after his call. He may be obliged towards GZ, for having prevented a robbery in his house, I am not sure though. Maybe he took the photo?
Speculations: Early my mind was circling the cries, who cried(?), what different scenarios could there be(?), before I understood Florida the SYG law, which apparently doesn’t protect aggression, I wondered if it was really TM who called for help, could this have triggered an unfortunate chain reaction? Something like: more easy to get away with SYG, since rarely prosecuted, than ending up with another misdemeanor charge? Clearly GZ understands his rights.
This sounded really interesting: Yes, I know a lot about psychological autopsies.
Can you give me standard literature helping to understand the issue better? Is there a chance it will be used in the TM-GZ case?
Leander22, your hypothetical does not have enough information to cause me to have an opinion. If ‘John’ were a credible eyewitness, it would certainly put a whole new light on things.
I think your underlying question is whether Zimmerman would have popped a cap at Martin if ‘John’ were watching him or said something to him. There is no way to know the answer to that. In determining intent, there is a concept called “policeman at the elbow.” That means would the act have taken place had a policeman been standing at his elbow. You can call me a skeptic on that one.
Thanks OS, I have a longer post awaiting moderation. Maybe it’s too long.
But let’s assume Zimmerman would have been stopped e.g. by John walking outside and checking what is going on. Would that have had consequences for Zimmerman?
leander22,
There is no way this guy would have a shot at becoming a POST certified LEO if anyone from our office were doing the screening. I am aware there are departments scattered around the country that have lax hiring practices, but for all intent and purpose, this guy’s aspiring career in law enforcment is dead in the water.
Otteray scribe, something is vaguely on my mind, since thinking about this case. Zimmerman has an associate criminal justice degree, his first maybe unfortunate encounter with an uncover officer left no trace on his resume, if I understand correctly. Now if someone had prevented Zimmerman’s shot by simply going outside and checking what was going on, and stop the shot, could that have resulted in another charge that would have resulted in his former encounter being reconsidered? What would a blot on your resume mean in this connection, could it harm your career chances?
Furthermore, the person who took the picture — “new witness” — “name undisclosed” — not included in the police report filed by Ayala by 3:00 a.m. the next morning — wait wait, tell me THIS again? Zimmerman’s saying, “hi honey I shot a punk” while there’s no “bus” on the scene to take care of the “punk” who’s “down” — am I watching one of the outtakes of a cop show on TV because nobody damnit learned their lines?
raff, my 23 y/o youngest daughter is now an LEO. Been on the job about a month now, and even with her low level of experience, she thinks this bit does not come close to passing the smell test. She says that if one of their officers took the time to take a picture and let a guy who just shot and killed somebody make a cell phone call, her agency would have a new job opening immediately.
OS,
I agree with you. The police work was shoddy, at best. These officers need to find a new profession.
leander22,
if Officer Timothy Smith did not secure the weapon and handcuff the suspect immediatly, he violated every arrest training rule ever written. When an officer comes on the scene of a shooting, the very first thing he does is secure the weapon, and the second thing is place the suspect in handcuffs. No exeptions. That enlarged photo shows Zimmerman on the phone and not in handcuffs. If Smith worked for me, he would have about a week of explaining to do, and after that I would probably fire him.
The confusion that is naturally generated about what actually happened between 7 pm and 8 pm Eastern Standard Time on 2/26/2012 in Sanford Florida in that gated community is a direct result of the highly suspect, clearly faulty police work that night. The real story of what each person actually did will be very hard to establish because so much was done wrong that there will be lots of non-answers, lots of unverifiable answers, maybe even lots of false answers, and maybe a sprinkling of “I refuse to answer on the grounds that I may incriminate myself.” The only thing that is really obvious at this point is that because the police and Wolfinger did not expect this to blow up in their faces, they did not seem to be terribly worried about not following any proper procedures from the first minute to the last pre-media-storm minute, and whatever happened after that is anybody’s guess (unless the feds have it half unraveled already, and then it’s almost anybody’s guess).
Photos of injures to Zimmerman should have been taken with associated E.R. reports after a trip to the hospital — in handcuffs unless he was unconscious at any point — to test everything, measure everything, record everything, evaluate everything, and officially do what was needed, including TREAT EVERYTHING that required treatment. You don’t ASK an injured suspect if he wants to take a trip to the E.R. That’s not protocol. How did the police even KNOW that Zimmerman was in his right mind, to give a reliable ANSWER, right after he shot somebody to death?
Furthermore, this minuet of “new witness” and “new evidence” and “oh wait a minute, we have an explanation for that” and so forth is as corny as hell and as bizarre as an eggplant in the shape of Richard Nixon’s face.
Otteray Scribe, “Either the SPD report is wrong or Timothy Smith is wrong. They cannot have it both ways.”
this is interesting. It means it could be an early police documentation of the much talked about wounds. Maybe I don’t understand you, but why shouldn’t T. Smith have taken the photo? Or what is he wrong about? If so, it would make it a valid documentation? He noticed and reports that RW is bleeding. If this is a authentic documentation what was the odd “deep cross-shaped scar/wound” on the enhanced video about?
I don’t know how to link to the specific person here, but I found PatriotX or his analysis of the 911 call sheet interesting. He seems to have made several comments here, so maybe better search for: 03-29-2012, 04:37 AM or part of the quotation below .His reading of some of the abbreviations on the 911 call make sense, he seems to be the only person that took a closer look..
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/archive/index.php/t-644910-p-10.html
“At 19:13:27 Officer with a radio ID of S2711 is also dispatched to this call. And is shown to be checked enroute within the same minute. AND a REM (remark) is added noting the same.”
The three entries at 19:17:11 all have this ID again: S2711, and the time of the initial police report has that time too. That means that Timothy Smith arrives at that time. Since he is the first and notes the blood on the head, so why shouldn’t have taken a photo to document it? Before, as the writes handcuffing Zimmerman. He simply allows him to inform his wife?
Anderson — sorry for the mix-up, I was describing myself as anti-Zimmerman previously, to someone else, got mixed up between the two (or three) of you.
I was showing these “facts not yet in evidence” to illustrate the point that the issue of Zimmerman being the aggressor could be proven in court and that he would then have a hard time making out a self-defense claim.
Every one of the facts I refer to, whether i have it 100% correct or 90% correct, is a fact that the prosecution can easily get 100% correct with all the stuff laid out in front of them and with their full staff of people working on the case. My quick summary (I type over 100 wpm) from memory gave the outline of the facts that can be put INTO evidence, and probably will be, if the trial develops.
What the girlfriend heard and what she testifies to will be put into evidence properly so my rendition of it is just a sketch. And so forth.
As to my not being a “very honest person,” oh please. As James Brown would say, “Deal widdit; you gotta DEAL widdit.” You may have to deal with liars like me all your life, so DEAL WIDDIT.
Anderson, good try, perhaps, but perhaps not. You say I’m not a very honest person? You say my facts are not in evidence? These are matters of very little import to the real trial and to the fact that I have shown YOU th reasons that I am not worried about the epithet “anti-Zimmerman.” If I were working on the prosecution team (as something other than a lawyer because I am not a lawyer), I would get the exact facts and the precise quotes INTO evidence, and would do so by means of using the court’s evidentiary rules and so forth. Whether the fact was “I heard him say ‘what are you doing here?'” or it was “I heard someone say ‘how come you’re here?'” or something similar is not the point at all. The point is that I believe there is plenty of valid evidentiary material from which the prosecutor can (and will, if they are not deliberately trying to throw the case) show beyond a reasonable doubt that the meeting of Zimmerman the shooter and Martin the deceased on the night of 2/26/2012 was a result of Zimmerman’s aggression carried out against Martin. Ibrahim Rashada was quoted early on in the media coverage, in March, and his quotes included the fact that he was 25 years old, that he felt that Zimmerman had profiled young Black males as suspicious characters to be watched and followed, and that he was uncomfortable walking in his own neighborhood as a result of the fliers handed out by Zimmerman. He also said that prior to his developing these concerns, he had nothing against Zimmerman and had considered him a “cool dude.”
OF COURSE the facts are not yet in evidence. There has been no trial yet and there have been no evidentiary rulings and so forth.
But what I was proving — honestly and without equivocation, whether or not I am what you call a “very nonest person” — was that I had valid reason to declare myself, without any apology, anti-Zimmerman.
I am not against ALL Zimmermans. I am not against all 28-year-old Virginia-born men whose fathers are white and whose mothers are “of Peruvian descent.” I am not against all neighborhood watch captains. I am not against all people with CCW permits. I am not even against all men who have shot other human beings, even fatally. I am anti-Zimmerman. Honest.
Ibrahim Rashada -Who? What? Objection. Facts not in evidence. This is the first time that name has been brought up this thread. You presented it on another thread but didn’t provide a link (or any effort whatsoever to identify the source). A search for that name shows the source to be a blog (and only one blog at that). You say that Rashada “is being quoted all over the place”. I say you are not a very honest person.
From ABC News:
Martin’s girlfriend; “Trayvon said, ‘What are you following me for,’ and the man said, ‘What are you doing here.’ Next thing I hear is somebody pushing, and somebody pushed Trayvon because the head set just fell. I called him again, and he didn’t answer the phone.”
The order of events is something you shouldn’t take lightly. Details like that can make big differences. According to Martin’s girlfriend, Martin made the first verbal contact, and she says nothing about the tone of Zimmerman’s voice (which would be needed if you’re going to say that Zimmerman accosted Martin).
What about that push? What does a push sound like on a cell phone? How do you tell who is pushing who by the sound heard on a cell phone call?
“THEN the burden shifts to the defense to show that Trayvon Martin was the initial — “initial” — aggressor.”
That would be another incorrect conclusion. All Zimmerman’s defense need do is supply enough reasonable doubt.
While we’re at it, Ms. Prosecutor,
(3) Zimmerman called Martin an “asshole” and stated his frustration that Martin might “get away.”
(4) Zimmerman called Martin a “punk” or perhaps something more derogatory.
OBJECTION! Facts not in evidence. Zimmerman was speaking in generalities, as they pertain to the people who burglarized other members of the neighborhood.
@SonofThunder: Well I did it, huh? Hush my mouth!
@ anon: I don’t speak e. What’s lulz? (white enough space for you?)
@ anon: My point about McNeil is not that he should not have been charged or that he was charged; my point about him was that he did not satisfy the jury that he had killed in self-defense! Now, Zimmerman has been charged. Debate about whether he should have been or should not have been is moot, at this point. I am saying, NOW, that he will have an uphill battle to prove self-defense. It’s anybody’s guess how steep that hill is going to be; too many parameters to be able to handicap that race right now. But I personally think that McNeil’s witnesses (see the dissent by the chief judge) gave statements that would be a lot more convincing than any statement Zimmerman might give so far.
@ Anderson: You said: ““And Mr. Zimmerman will have to show that he was not the initial aggressor.”
I would have to disagree. Mr. Zimmerman would not have to show anything other than that he was in reasonable fear for his life or serious bodily harm. The onus is on the prosecution to demonstrate that Zimmerman was the initial aggressor (“aggressor” would be something more than watching or re-positioning to see where the suspicious person was going). I don’t even think that accosting (something Malisha has asserted, but never backed up with evidence or witness account) would likely not eliminate a viable self-defense claim.”
OK, the quote within quote is a bit confusing, but I don’t know how to set it out any better than that. You are saying, I think, that Zimmerman does not have to show that he was NOT the initial aggressor. I agree completely. But although you say I have asserted that Zimmerman was the initial aggressor “but never backed up with evidence or witness account,” let me show how a prosecutor could do me one better on THAT count (and I sure hope she DOES).
Theory: Zimmerman was the initial aggressor.
Data supporting theory:
(1) Zimmerman saw and reported (as suspicious and needing police attention) Martin.
(2) Zimmerman speculated about the various criminal enterprises Martin might be engaged in.
(3) Zimmerman called Martin an “asshole” and stated his frustration that Martin might “get away.”
(4) Zimmerman called Martin a “punk” or perhaps something more derogatory.
(5) Zimmerman had apparently handed out literature in the neighborhood urging residents to watch out for young Black men and had in fact given a young Black man in the neighborhood, Ibrahim Rashada, cause for concern and even fear, so that Rashada claimed that when he wanted to “stretch his legs,” he would drive downtown to do so in order to avoid being “chased.” At the same time, Rashada was a young Black man (25 years old) slightly younger than Zimmerman; Zimmerman has testified that when he saw Martin, he thought he was “a little younger than me.”
(6) Zimmerman admitted to the police that he was following Martin, AFTER expressing frustration that Martin was running and might get away.
(7) Martin’s girlfriend, who has given her statement to the prosecutor, heard Zimmerman say to Martin, “What are you doing here?” and heard Martin reply, “Why are you following me?” Then the cell phone apparently was disengaged (no information is given about where it presently resides or why).
So although I have not built the case that Zimmerman was the aggressor, the above details certainly indicate that a halfway competent prosecutor will be able to do that. THEN the burden shifts to the defense to show that Trayvon Martin was the initial — “initial” — aggressor. Anybody want to know what the meaning of “is” is?
anon,
Thank you for your concern over my autonomic nervous system, but my circulatory and respiratory functions are all operating within nominal parameters aside from a bit of seasonal hay fever which I would characterize as normal with it being spring and all.
On the headless chicken thing, you’re on your own.
Haven’t figured what out yet?
How a headless chicken can live for months?
The abnormal burdens that have been placed on your autonomic nervous system?
Malisha/Mike S.,
Thank you both.
*************
anon,
Still haven’t figured it out yet, have you? (That’s a rhetorical question.)
Malisha:
Yes, I know a lot about psychological autopsies. I have been admitted as an expert in that area in both Federal District Court and state courts. I have lectured on the subject and have a huge file of resource materials. So yes, it is possible to tease out a lot of information about both men and how they are likely to react under stress, even though one of them is dead.