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.
Sling, this summarizes the defense expert’s assessment of the circumstances and the nose blow:
http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/national_world&id=9167445
If your theory had any merit, surely the prosecution would have found some expert willing to testify that the recoil from the gun caused Zimmerman’s facial injuries. There are many experts that would be willing to say that the moon is made of blue cheese for $1,000 an hour. I know. I’ve seen several of them testify. But when those “hired-gun” experts are deposed, they are usually demolished by the opposing attorney, rendering their “expert” deposition testimony useless in a trial.
I’m sure that the prosecution search far and wide for somebody to testify to exactly the point you raise. Maybe they even went through a mock-depo exercise. But in any event, the reason such testimony was presented is because the prosecution knew that theory held no water.
Bron, the photos that Sling provided don’t show the extent of the facial injury. This photo does:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/12/03/see-the-new-photo-of-a-bloody-george-zimmerman-released-by-his-defense-team/
Sling:
thanks. they dont show much do they. But it does take some time for a bruise to appear.
That nick on the bridge of his nose could be from a hammer if that particular pistol had one external. Or maybe the rear sites?
This article was pulled from the Guardian website:
Open season on black boys after a verdict like this
Let it be noted that on this day, Saturday 13 July 2013, it was still deemed legal in the US to chase and then shoot dead an unarmed young black man on his way home from the store because you didn’t like the look of him.
…
“F-ing punks,” Zimmerman told the police dispatcher that night. “These a-holes. They always get away.”
So true it’s painful. And so predictable it hurts.
Rafflaw,
It’s a really cheap gun. Very populat apparently.
Cops use such guns – Double Action Only with a long hard pull on the trigger that draws back the hammer and releases in one motion.
They just dwaw and shoot. No safety to fiddle with. No safety also means no problems with left and right handers.
That long hard pull is one reason that they generally can’t shoot for Cr*p.
It’s one of the reasons that , for example, those two cops injured so many innocent bystanders near the Empire State last year.
They use hollow point so that if they do happen to hit someone – whether the target or an innocent bystander – the bullet will tend not pass through the body and hit someone behind that person.
If you get hit accidentally by a hollow-point, it’s a problem. They are designed to break up on entry and inflict ‘stopping’-type damage.
Bron,
http://trayvon.axiomamnesia.com/trayvon-zimmerman-case-photos/?album=1&gallery=1
Has police evidence photos.
Those of Zimmerman were taken in the police station shortly after he was brought there – a coule of hours after the incident.
He had been cleaned at the scene, so these ones show any marks and bruising on his face from a number of angles.
Darren,
If Zimmerman did not have a bullet in the chamber, Trayvon might be alive today, but we will never know. Is that a type of gun favored by law enforcement? Why would someone like Zimmerman choose this particular gun?
“Until the killing of black men, black mothers’ sons, becomes as important to the rest of the country as the killing of a white mother’s son. We who believe in freedom cannot rest until this happens.” – Lyric interpreted from 1964 quote by Ella Baker:
Bron,
I am unable to do that test where I am right now. There would be ‘issues’ involved in getting a Kel-Tec PF-9 to play with.
From a dry run, without the (dubious) benefit of a “jumper” as the guys in the video describe that particular gun’s remarkably strong recoil, what comes at my face, pivoted at my sharply-bent elbow and sharply ‘downward’-bent wrist is not the gun itself but that nice big hard bone at the base of my thumb – with my hand preventing the gun from touching my face.
No sharp edges. It’s a very blunt instrument that heads my way.
The recoil impact is not an article of faith with me. It simply looked like a good possibility. I raised it only as the gun had been mentioned above with regard to safety and ammunition.
The fight could have taken place with Martin punching Zimmerman, but that would have been Martin reacting in self defence to the creepy follower in the dark not explaining his purpose and instead going for his waistband (weapon) or indeed drawing a gun.
I haven’t gone just yet. It isn’t just this one thread, it’s all the threads re: gz.
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_c_0_19?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=robert%20zimmerman%20sr&sprefix=robert+zimmerman+sr%2Caps%2C268
Robert Zimmerman, Sr., father to the non-racist gz’s book identifies the true racists in this country: The National Basketball Players Association, Black Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Black Law Enforcement Officers, National Black United Fund, United Negro College Fund.
The second book on this page by Knox is a so-called forensics expert who took down his website after much of his analysis was debunked by non-experts who just paid attention.
bettykath, You do as you see fit. However, I personally would never want to be around or discuss subjects w/ people w/ whom I always agreed. It stunts your growth. Always effort to not make emotional decisions. You’re a great commenter. I hope, and believe, you’ll be back.
bettykath, leave it to the imaginative Charles Beaumont and the Twilight Zone team from the 1960s TV show to give us some insight into a “perfect world” where everyone is the same–or virtually the same. Enjoy this episode, as these usually don’t last long on YouTube:
Sling:
if you got whacked in the face by recoil, such that it could break your nose, there would be some mark from the gun on your face. It would cause a funny looking bruise. When I was a kid I got hit with a baseball and you could see the stitches and the seams with the holes.
I am not saying it isnt possible, I am just saying if that had happened it would be very unusual for there to be no mark from the back of the weapon. A hammer mark or something. An ME should have picked up on it.
Do you have a site with close ups to Zimmerman’s face and the brusising?
Bettykath,
I second/third Ralph and Bron.
Posting in echo chambers is boring.
I often post in Mike McDaniel’s Stately Manor,
Yes.
Me.
In full verbose mode. Paragrah upon paragraph.
Posting stuff that goes down like fresh rat sandwich over there 🙂
engaging with people who have a very different world view.
As it happens, the tone over there is almost always respectful – even to me. And of course that’s how I post too,
This blog can be a bit of a bear garden by comparison.
Ralph,
Can you supply a link to the studies done by by others?
I would be interested to read them.
Bron,
Zimmerman had a suspected closed fracture.
The medical assistant who examined him in daylight the next morning wrote that the closed fracture was suspected as the bruising was typical of such an injury.
Have a look at the recoil ….of that particular gun… even while held in a decent two-handed arms-braced grip.
Now that Ralph understands that the test firing of that gun in front of his face would be under circumstances that would avoid any possible injury to anyone other than himself, I feel sure that he will be happy to give it a try.
Yes, Bron, with my hand-held 38, I’m able to take extremely smooth, detailed, and elegant crane shots. With a lot more practice, I may be yet accomplish something like this classic crane shot:
Reblogged this on Ellelle's Blog.
Ralph: “I’m not going to try out your theory just to prove you wrong because I would never experiment with a gun in a way that could endanger someone”
Perhaps you did not read my post carefully enough.
For the last bit, where you pull the trigger with the loaded gun in front of your face, the person is not going to be leaning over you. I thought that I had made that clear.
Do this is a safe area and in a position where there is no danger of the bullet hitting anyone. I know you said that you got good accuracy with oine-handed firing, but it would be safer to assume a wide cone of possible trajectories for the bullet.
In these circumstances the only person who could be endangered would be yourself.
You are certain that this danger would be non-existent. So why not try it out. It’s completely safe, you say.
At the same time, it might be no harm to have a medic on hand.
Just in case, y’know
bettykath:
I second Ralph, I dont agree with anyone on this site and they dont agree with me. that is what makes it interesting.
you should stay.
sling:
I dont think the recoil from a 9mm is going to break a nose. Bones are pretty strong.
Although it was a good thought.