Below is a slightly expanded version of today’s column in USA Today on the Zimmerman verdict. As I wrote before the case was sent to the jury, I saw no alternative to acquittal even on manslaughter and expected the jury to render a full acquittal. I respect the conflicting views of many on this blog on the case and how it was charged and handled. We will now have to wait to see if the Justice Department will re-try Zimmerman as a civil rights matter. I have serious reservations about such an effort, but that can be for a later discussion. For now, a few observations on the verdict can serve to as a foundation for our own discussion.
SEPARATING LAW AND LEGEND IN THE ZIMMERMAN VERDICT
The acquittal of George Zimmerman in the death of Trayvon Martin was not minutes old when an outcry was heard over racial injustice and demands for yet another prosecution by the Obama Administration. There was even a call for President Barack Obama to address the nation from the Oval Office to promise action to quell projected violence. With the verdict, the George Zimmerman case entered the realm of legal mythology – a tale told by different groups in radically different ways for different meanings. Fax machines were activated with solicitations and soundbites previously programmed for this moment. The legal standards long ago seemed to be lost to the social symbolism of the case.
Criminal cases make for perfect and often dangerous vehicles for social expression. They allow long-standing social and racial issues to be personified in villains and victims. We simplify facts and characters – discarding those facts that do not fit our narrative. We pile meanings on the outcome that soon make the actual murder secondary to the message. George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin became proxies in a long-standing our unresolved national debate over race.
Before the case is lost forever to the artistic license of social commentary, a few legal observations should be considered, even if unpopular, before condemning this jury.
First, many of us from the first day of the indictment criticized State Attorney Angela Corey for overcharging the case as second-degree murder. While Corey publicly proclaimed that she was above public pressure, her prosecution decisions suggested otherwise. Investigators incorporated the family in key interviews. For example, one key witness was first interviewed by an attorney for Martin’s family and then talked to prosecutors in the home of Martin’s mother. The prosecutors were accused of withholding evidence from the defense until shortly before trial — a delay that the defense said denied them the ability to use text messages that portrayed Martin in a more violent image.
However, the widespread protests and anger over the shooting seemed to have its greatest impact on Corey’s decision to charge the case as murder in the second degree. This was clearly a challenging case even for manslaughter and the decision to push second-degree murder (while satisfying to many in the public) was legally and tactically unwise. The facts simply did not support a claim beyond a reasonable doubt that George Zimmerman acted with intent and a “depraved mind, hatred, malice, evil intent or ill will.” Had Corey charged manslaughter, the case might have been closer but would have still been a challenge.
Many people were highly critical of the prosecution for putting on what seemed like a case for Zimmerman. The prosecution clearly made its share of mistakes like leading its case with the testimony of Trayvon Martin’s friend, Rachel Jeantel. Jeantel was a disastrous witness who had to admit to lying previously under oath and produced conflicted testimony. She also stated that just as Zimmerman was accused of calling Martin a derogatory name, Martin called Zimmerman a “cracker.”
The prosecution consistently overplayed its hand in a desperate attempt to overcome its own witnesses, such as handling the damaging testimony from the detective that Martin’s father clearly denied that it was his son calling for help (He later changed his mind after listening to the tape 20 times). Even after being criticized by many experts for overcharging the case, the prosecution proceeded to make a demand at the end of the trial that the jury be able to convict Zimmerman on a different crime: third degree murder based on child abuse. The judge wisely rejected that demand but allowed the jury to consider manslaughter as a lesser charge.
However, in the end it was the case and not the prosecution that was demonstrably weak. The fact is that we had no better an idea of what happened that night at the end of this trial than we had at the end of that fateful night. Jurors don’t make social judgments or guesses on verdicts. While many have criticized Zimmerman for following Martin, citizens are allowed to follow people in their neighborhood. That is not unlawful. It was also lawful for Zimmerman to be armed. The question comes down to who started the fight and whether Zimmerman was acting in self-defense.
Various witnesses said that Martin was on top of Zimmerman and said that they believed that Zimmerman was the man calling for help. Zimmerman had injuries. Not serious injuries but injuries to his head from the struggle. Does that mean that he was clearly the victim. No. It does create added doubt on the question of the use of lethal force.
There is also no evidence as to who threw the first punch or committed the first physical act in the struggle. A juror could not simply assume Zimmerman was the aggressor. Zimmerman was largely consistent in his accounts and his account was consistent with some witnesses. After 38 prosecution witnesses, there was nothing more than a call for the jury to assume the worst facts against Zimmerman without any objective piece of evidence. That is the opposite of the standard of a presumption of innocence in a criminal trial. There was evidence to support both accounts but that evidence remained in equipoise, leaving the jury with no objective basis to reject one over the other.
Even for manslaughter, the jury had to find that George Zimmerman intentionally committed an act or acts that caused the death of Trayvon Martin. but was told that “a killing that is excusable or was committed by the use of justifiable deadly force is lawful.” The jury instruction on deadly force states in part: “A person is justified in using deadly force if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself.” That lesser charge still brings the jury back to the question of who started the fight and how the fight unfolded. The prosecutors never had evidence to answer that question in a reasonably definitive way. In the end, the jury had no serious alternative to acquittal. That does not mean that they liked Zimmerman or his actions. It does not even mean that they believed Zimmerman. It means that they could not convict a man based on a presumption of guilt.
Of course, little of this matters in the wake of a high-profile case. The case and its characters long ago took on the qualities of legend. A legend is defined as “a traditional story sometimes popularly regarded as historical but unauthenticated.” People will make what they will of the murder trial of George Zimmerman. However, this jury proved that the justice system remains a matter not of legend but law.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and a member of USA TODAY’s board of contributors.
It seems that it would be impossible for Zimmerman to be convicted when the burden of proof is at the level of beyond a reasonable doubt and the witnesses in favor of the prosecution had so many problems with their testimony, including an admission for one of them that she had lied previously under oath.
Bruce,
“Unfortunately it is mostly a fictive version based upon what if rather than authentic facts as they are known.”
I invite you to point out whatever authentic facts indicate against the alternative that I presented.
It is no more ‘what if’ based than is Zimmerman’s account.
There was a fight? Yes for both.
Zimmerman was losing that fight? Yes for both.
The Martin/W8 call dropped 17 seconds before Laeur finished dialling 911. Meaning that the fight had been in progress for some time before the call dropped? Yes forauthentic facts. No for Zimmerman’s account – unless Martin jumped him while still on a phone call..
That Zimmerman (if he actually went to RVC) started immediatley for his truck after the NEN ended? Impossible in the authentic timeline. It’s what Zimmerman claimed (and in fact on Hannity claimed something even more impossible – “less than 30 seconds”).
There are no authentic facts that prove how the fight started.
A reasonable person would agree that Zimmerman was reckless in
1) Following/going_in_the_same_direction as someone whom he claimed had threatened him
2) Staying exposed in the dark area after explicitly voicing a realisation that the person that he claimed had threatened him could be very close by
A reasonable person would look in particular at the Hannity interview v all that Zimmerman had sais initially – and conclude that Zimmerman was lying outrageously.
Manslaughter – completely unpremeditated
A mutual understanding.
Zimmerman thought Martin was a burglar and went to follow and locate him – against all good sense and advice – against prudence and reasonability.
Martin thought Zimmerman meant him harm.
When they encountered, even by Zimmerman’s own account, Zimmerman’s rresponse could only have inflamed Martin’s misunderstanding of what Zimmerman was up to.
See http://zimmermanscall.blogspot.com/p/quiz.html
.
Zimmerman screwed up – bigtime. Martin died. Manslaughter.
SlingT gets to the heart of the matter with the quote about the real danger that could result from this case: more George Zimmermans.
For me, this ain’t about race, never was, it’s about guns in the hands of idiots. Worse than beer muscles, this “caliber courage” is already giving lie to the claim that more guns will result in a reduction in crime. They do not. Studies are now showing that more gun violence is occurring, and occurring with deadlier results, in states that allow conceal/carry from confrontations that would not have taken place at all, but for the possession of a handgun by one of the parties. These confrontations stem from small insults that would have normally been overlooked (or not offered), and altercations that would have been limited to non-lethal physical fights. In other words, gun possession laws are leading to an escalation in lethal violence in a way that can be analogized to the way seat belts supposedly embolden riskier driving behavior.
It’s very unlikely that Zimmerman is following that kid if he doesn’t have a gun, and there’s no way he stops and confronts him otherwise. This was one criminal case that could have been used to make good social policy in a nation that appears to be heading towards embracing the handgun the way it embraced the automobile.
We don’t have the same punk problem here at our gated community and marina that those folks in Sanford and Son had. Our punks from the nearby trailer park hood are white. So if one of us old farts gets assaulted and beats up the white punk we wont get all this Piers Morgan apCray about hoodies and skiddles and there wont be pressure on the police chief to prosecute the old fart victim. Now we have had some old fart victims of crime here who were black and if they get killed by a white hoodie then we can get CNN involved. And Sonny whatshername and Jeffrey never tried a case yet legal expert Toobin can climb on the media bandwagon.
We wore dog tee shirts here in our gated community: “Walk Free Z!”
I have one thing to add: Get rid of Word Press or the person who reads our comments and holds them up or refuses to post them. I am originally from New Hampshire and believe in the adage: Live Free or Die.
MARV:
not that it matters but are you African American?
What that fellow Tommy Sotomajor says can be applied to all people, not only blacks. The whole world is upside down concerning morals.
And it is all children who are being oversexualized not just blacks. Pedophiles must run things or so it seems.
Many single white women have trouble raising children. It isnt only single black women.
What you point out is just what happens when natural laws are not followed. I am not talking religion or god here. Human beings are animals and as such are subject to the laws which govern our nature, when we are in harmony with those laws things take care of themselves. When we are in disharmony there is chaos.
I’ve been having trouble posting comments. I’ll try again.
How about showing a little respect for the dead? The latest from Robert Zimmerman:
Robert Zimmerman Jr: ‘What Makes People Angry Enough To Attack The Way Trayvon Did?’
The Huffington Post
By Jermaine Spradley
Posted: 07/14/2013
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/14/robert-zimmerman-jr_n_3593739.html
As the verdict in the George Zimmerman trial settles into the American consciousness, Robert Zimmerman Jr., the brother of George Zimmerman, sat with Piers Morgan immediately following the verdict to discuss the trial and what he thinks is next for his brother.
Near the end of the interview, CNN anchor Don Lemon felt compelled to ask Zimmerman Jr. a question on the potential opportunity for racial healing now that such a polarizing case has come to an end.
Lemon asked:
“You said you want to start some sort of dialogue, and much has been made about race in this particular case. And you, your brother, your family—you have a unique opportunity in this country to address that. What would you like to see happen when it comes to race, healing the divide, and do you plan to do anything about that, and will you ask your brother to do anything about that?”
What seemed like a chance for Zimmerman Jr. to begin some semblance of a reconciliation process quickly morphed into a bizarre indictment of Trayvon Martin, the 17-year-old shot and killed by George Zimmerman.
“I want to know what makes people angry enough to attack someone the way Trayvon Martin did. I want to know if it is true, and I don’t know if it’s true, that Trayvon Martin was looking to procure firearms, was growing dru.. marijuana plants or was making ‘lean’ or whatever he was doing. I want to know that every minor, high schooler that would be reaching out in some way for help and they may feel it’s by procuring firearms or whatever it is they may be doing, that they have some kind of help.”
This is not the first time Zimmerman Jr.’s words have caused controversy. In March, Zimmerman Jr. tweeted a picture that showed perceived similarities of Trayvon Martin and De’Marquise Kareem Elkins, a teenager from Georgia accused of killing a 13-month-old boy.
Lost a lot of respect for white america yesterday.
Robert Zimmerman Jr: ‘What Makes People Angry Enough To Attack The Way Trayvon Did?’
By Jermaine Spradley
Posted: 07/14/2013
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/14/robert-zimmerman-jr_n_3593739.html
As the verdict in the George Zimmerman trial settles into the American consciousness, Robert Zimmerman Jr., the brother of George Zimmerman, sat with Piers Morgan immediately following the verdict to discuss the trial and what he thinks is next for his brother.
Near the end of the interview, CNN anchor Don Lemon felt compelled to ask Zimmerman Jr. a question on the potential opportunity for racial healing now that such a polarizing case has come to an end.
Lemon asked:
“You said you want to start some sort of dialogue, and much has been made about race in this particular case. And you, your brother, your family—you have a unique opportunity in this country to address that. What would you like to see happen when it comes to race, healing the divide, and do you plan to do anything about that, and will you ask your brother to do anything about that?”
What seemed like a chance for Zimmerman Jr. to begin some semblance of a reconciliation process quickly morphed into a bizarre indictment of Trayvon Martin, the 17-year-old shot and killed by George Zimmerman.
“I want to know what makes people angry enough to attack someone the way Trayvon Martin did. I want to know if it is true, and I don’t know if it’s true, that Trayvon Martin was looking to procure firearms, was growing dru.. marijuana plants or was making ‘lean’ or whatever he was doing. I want to know that every minor, high schooler that would be reaching out in some way for help and they may feel it’s by procuring firearms or whatever it is they may be doing, that they have some kind of help.”
This is not the first time Zimmerman Jr.’s words have caused controversy. In March, Zimmerman Jr. tweeted a picture that showed perceived similarities of Trayvon Martin and De’Marquise Kareem Elkins, a teenager from Georgia accused of killing a 13-month-old boy.
Maybe it would be useful here if every commenter would write down how much of the actual courtroom testimony he or she watched and listened to.
Once again, marv, a whole lotta hate coming off that screen. I don’t even bother reading your posts anymore. Frankly, you are exhibit A for why conceal/carry shouldn’t be allowed. Were you victimized in prison or something?
@SlingTrebuchet: I respect what you present. Nevertheless it remains only
Sensible speculation for a sympathetic TV version (which is sure to come out in some popular perspective). Unfortunately it is mostly a fictive version based upon what if rather than authentic facts as they are known. Another person might well project a scenario that makes Zimmerman look like he actually had no choice at all. There are so many atrocities appearing across the country that would have been better examples of abuse that would stand on fact, and some of them have presented on this blog site. The case here was distorted from the start. Showing baby pictures is not a legitimate indication of what happened on that night from one side or the other. It was sensationalized from the start.
If any question is raised by this case study it is that ‘stand your ground’ should go before Congress on a National Level of inquiry. Lethal force is abused daily by cops and authorities in this country and “we don’t need you to follow him” is not a standard of restraint that holds any true meaning against an extension of that lethal force to the civilian wannabes. But then again, we haven’t solved illegal weapons or outraged against gangland drive-by shootings with anywhere near the intensity that this situation provokes. How do you think average civilians are going to surrender their own weapons when the cops and robbers game is getting worse by the day, and the police force is looking like paramilitary occupation teams? Turn on the TV in the evening and tell me that everything is just normal entertainment when gruesome murder and mayhem is the real standard. The national attention here was not comprehensive, it just allowed alot of people to write their own script and vent on their private inclinations.
It’s a tragedy indeed, but unfortunately we can only admit that there is no clear and obvious factual evidence that compels us to accept your story…and there is a good deal of quiet “local” circumstantial evidence to provide some degree of doubt. The bottom line is that none of us were there! The jurors heard the evidence as it holds up, and they were Moms.
I don’t think they wanted to see injustice compounded. They weighed the facts and it did not support your scenario.
The only “self-defense” in this case was Martin’s evidently successful (temporarily) rebuff of Zimmerman after he was profiled, stalked and confronted. But minding your own business is no defense to “walking while Black” in a nation that worships bullies.
The stipulated facts in this case make Zimmerman’s use of deadly force an outrage to decency. The rule of law has failed us.
hey david, if blacks do not want to be profiled then i suggest they clean up their community and put an end to the criminal element. There are more blacks in jail than there are in college. Spare me the excuses. Nobody is forcing them to be criminals.
You act like they are segregated by whites when the truth is they segregate themselves. People like you are not helping them, YOU ARE HINDERING THEM.
I already knew this would happen as far back as July 11, 2013 and gave the reason why.
I wonder if during the physical fight, ..what if Zimmerman had got a great punch in and knocked Trayvon out? The cops show up and cowboy George is standing over Trayvon, who has yet to come around. George starts telling his story, … Trayvon comes to and says he was walking to his fathers house. What happens?
This tragedy started because Trayvon was walking while black. …. and or walking while a teenager in a hoodie and black. Zimmerman with no authority, appointed himself “sheriff” then armed with a gun followed Trayvon/ after reporting to the police/ after the words/ “we don’t need you to do that sir”
What Trayvon could not tell the jury, what I think is true. Trayvon felt he was being stalked, he was being hunted. …. Should he go to his fathers house? bring this predator to his fathers doorstep?.
GZ instigated this whole thing. He is guilty of Stupid in the 1st degree, Vigilantism in the 1st degree, and in my opinion involuntary manslaughter. GZ actions brought about Trayvons death.
The Prosecution spoke, the Defense spoke, the Jury spoke.
I repeat, what if Zimmerman got a great punch in and knocked Trayvon out?
I think GZ would have been charged with assault. ….. maybe???
How would the court handle this hypothetical; He said, He said, scenario.
Blouise I think The NRA had a little help from ALEC.
If we hold our jury system in such high esteem, why do we not extend the same judgement (and trust in our citizenry) towards the grand jury system? If Florida had given this case over to a grand jury (one of which was already empaneled and ready to go), many legal issues may have been more appropriately handled, and the unfounded characterization of Zimmerman as a racist may have been short-circuited at the outset. When weeks later, after the case had drawn national attention and become politicized, special prosecutor Corey was appointed by Gov Scott and decided on her own to bypass the grand jury and file charges herself. That alone should be cause for concern. In Florida, only a charge of 1st degree murder is required to include a grand jury indictment. If a grand jury had participated at the outset, the issues of probable cause, arrest, and the level of charges would have been taken out of the hands of politically pressured officials.
This legal right is guaranteed to us at the federal level by the 5th Amendment. While not necessarily advocating the incorporation process, I will note that this is one of the few rights in the Bill of Rights that has not been extended to the states. Florida and other states that have not followed this grand jury model should consider making changes in light of this case.
SwM,
The self-defense aspect used by Zimmerman’s lawyers was made possible only recently:
In recent times, “stand your ground” laws extended this concept in many states beyond the home to any place where a person might lawfully be found, such as a bar or a public sidewalk. Florida’s version enacted in 2005 (over the objection of many in law enforcement) is one of the most far reaching.
The law states that a person “who is attacked” anywhere he is lawfully present has “no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm.”
Importantly, a person cannot invoke this provision if he is “engaged in unlawful activity” or “initially provokes the use of force against himself.” Finally, in Florida, once self-defense becomes an issue at trial, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense — a heavy burden.
It’s a bad law brought to you by the fine folks at the NRA who at the behest of gun manufactures want to make sure one can use their product without fear of prosecution. To that end Trayvon Martin was nothing more than a marketing tool.
Want to protect yourself from the perennial losers like George Zimmerman? We have just what you need … now what caliber do you want?