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.
Grats bron to figure it out. Yep im black. Not african, iam american.
Im sick and tired of the left telling me how i need their help like black people are inferior or something. Thats how the left views us. At least with the klan type i know up front how they feel. Most of you leftist are closeted bigots. Go to hell
ps; the only ‘Legend’ I see here is how this incident will be looked on for it’s absolute expression of fear based and subconsciously driven racism…right down to that moronicically racist comment by the defense after the trial…..
“The point about the manslaughter charge (which is the only charge that should have been brought in the absence of eyewitness to the shooting) is that he did not set out to shoot Martin.”~SlingTrebuchet
“The prosecution was incompetent. They never used the testimony by defendant that his pistol was holstered behind his right side, making it impossible for him to access it while he was on his back. Thus, he had to have drawn it while stalking the deceased before the fight.” ~ Mr. Ed
————–
I was told that the type of gun that was used was one that had to be cocked w/2 hands prior to firing….so that would be impossible for someone who was on their back getting their head beat on the ground……that in order for the gun to be fire ready the bullet had to have been cocked into the chamber ….is this true? If so why wasn’t that presented to the jury? The scenario of Zimmerman stalking Martin with gun out, cocked and at the ready, becomes more apparent and the other so less believable…
so sad the conversations today at church….one person (blk) talking about how his grandkids, in their 20’s , don’t even want to learn to drive because the risk involved in sufferring harm by ‘legal’ assault (usually assault by being stopped by the ‘law’) has become so inescapable…
Darren,
You’ll soon see the race card over and over played as well as be labeled a mysogynist for saying anything against Hillary….. Just keep posting….. You’ll see….
Nick & Darren,
We have an ample supply of those types.
The jury ruled based on the evidence presented. Sometimes the prosecution is incompetent and a person guilty of something gets acquitted. By the same token, sometimes the defense is incompetent and an innocent person is convicted of something they did not do. Or perhaps to a charge worse than deserved.
If both the prosecution and defense are competent, the jury has more to work with and justice is done.
I used to know a prosecutor whose office was notorious for overcharging. What came as the last straw for his career was charging drag racers with capital murder when they hit and killed a couple of young women. The charge carried a potential death penalty….for drag racing. That particular prosecutor lost the next election. When the case finally did come to trial, the jury brought back a verdict of manslaughter, which is what it should have been all along.
Darren, It’s pretty clear the latter!!
Pollyanna wrote:
“It’s no surprise that pro-Killerman people end up, intentionally or not, revealing their racism and white privilege, including Jonathan Turley.”
~+~
So now Professor Turley is a racist, or does this include everyone else that disagrees with your position?
TonyC, there’s absolutely no evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was engaged in an unlawful activity at the time the fight began. THAT is the legally relevant issue. There’s a reason the prosecution did not make the argument you’re trying to make and it’s because the evidence was not there. If you disagree, please cite the Florida criminal statute that you believe Zimmerman to have been violating and any supporting evidence.
It’s no surprise that pro-Killerman people end up, intentionally or not, revealing their racism and white privilege, including Jonathan Turley. The only reason I came to this blog was it’s been interesting for me, a lay person, to glean a legal perspective on issues. But this is a deal-breaker for me. Jonathan Turley was just chomping on the bit to gloat over this verdict, and cloak his gloating in “objectivity.” With all his ability for legal analysis, does he ever engage in self-analysis? He talked about social narratives and applying “facts” to fit one’s own narrative; does he admit to having one himself? How the hell do I unsubscribe from this blog? I no longer have any respect for anything coming out of Turley’s mouth.
Zimmerman is immune from any civil action by the Martin family.
Though the “Stand Your Ground” law was not employed at the criminal trial, the juries determination will have a role in applying the “Stand Your Ground” law to provide immunity to Zimmerman from any civil action.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String&URL=0700-0799%2F0776%2FSections%2F0776.032.html
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.012.html
Sling: There are no authentic facts that prove how the fight started.
On the contrary, as I stated earlier, it is already in the law that one can commit assault by intimidation without ever touching the victim; one can already commit a crime by stalking, invading privacy, and creating fear in another without touching them.
The facts clearly show that Zimmerman “started the fight” by stalking and intimidation of somebody legally minding their own business, striking fear into Martin. It makes no difference who threw the first punch, by the time that happened Zimmerman was already the aggressor clearly seeking a confrontation; there is no possible way to read the facts otherwise.
Turley has it wrong and so did the jury, had I been on it we would have been hung on manslaughter.
Professor,
I recognize that it is settled law that the United States can prosecute Zimmerman even after his state court acquittal. However, doesn’t the settled law conflict with the wording of the 5th Amendment which says “nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy …”? I recognize that the “offense” for which the federal government might prosecute Zimmerman would be technically different than his state court charges, but should that make a difference? Certainly, the State of Florida couldn’t put Zimmerman again in jeopardy by bringing additional charges arising out of the same incident. The precise wording of the 5th Amendment should also preclude re-prosecution by the federal government.
I hope (as the OJ Simpson trial did) this now goes to a civil suit, where the “preponderance of evidence” will be the lesser standard of proof, and Zimmerman loses all possible gain from this act to the Martin family.
Swarthmore Mom and Elaine,
The Stand your ground laws are just another reason why we need less guns on the street. Mr. Zimmerman is someone who should never have a hand gun in his possession.
Yet another reason to stay out of wild west Florida. Only the coming glacial melt water will cleanse it away now.
This was an easy case for acquittal. Those who think otherwise either misunderstand the law or the facts.
I said it last night on another thread, and I’ll say it here, after the case went to the jury Mr. Turley’s take on the case was spot on. He nailed it unlike so many legal pundits who often seem to be the most controversial. If this were a bench trial, I would want Mr. Turley handling it. And, he would have handled the abuse by the prosecutors regarding the exculpatory evidence differently than the minor leaguer trial judge in this case.
The jury did their job. Contrary to conventional wisdom, the vast majority of jurors take their civic duty seriously. They work hard, stay focused, and work cooperatively in the deliberation room. I’ve only been a juror once, but that was my experience. However, I have worked on over a thousand criminal and civil cases as a PI. I have testified hundreds of times in front of juries. They look @ you intently, they listen, take notes, they are fully engaged. And, in the vast majority of cases, even when the verdict went against my side, they get it right. During the closing arguments, when the prosecutor gave a tug @ the heart soliloquy about the Martins never having their son w/ them anymore, one of the jurors was crying. Five of the jurors were mothers. But, they put that aside because that is IRRELEVANT. They decided this case on the facts. God bless them and God bless our jury system.
The latest from George Zimmerman’s brother Robert:
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.
Excellent analysis….. The question remains whether the Obama DOJ will seek to retry the matter…… He’s in a no win situation….. Now if he’d paid as much attention to the eliminating of the Constitituon protections as he’s paid to this case I could see him justifying prosecution…. Other than than… The matter should not be prosecuted based upon public popularity…. If that were the reasoning…. He should have gone after the banksters…..
Marv, the tenor of your posts speak much to the reasoning of your thoughts. No thanks Marv, I avoid people with your mindset.
Skin color has nothing to do with a humans intrinsic worth or ability.
Your eagerness to claim it does exposes your ignorance to the facts of genetic proof.
Your eagerness to site statistics and then link them to skin color as the cause IS Racist. It is lazy thinking that suits the laziness of lazy minds.
Education, Health, Equal access to Opportunity will unite the human race.
These three things being absent from any humans life, are barriers few can overcome.
I rail for (and with statistical facts) the need to improve Education, Health, and Equal Opportunity.