Below is today’s column on the Zimmerman trial, which is a close follow-up to the web column from the night of the acquittal. As expected, it appears that we have lost a few regulars upset with my opinion of the case. I am always sorry to lose people on our blog. However, this has never been an echo-chamber blog that maintains a party line or ideological view. While we remain fervently pro-free speech and civil liberties at this blog, we often disagree about the outcome of trials or the merits of cases or policies. We try to maintain a site where civil but passionate disagreements and debate can occur. As an academic and a legal commentator and columnist, I have always tried to be fair and call these cases as I see them regardless of how unpopular those views may be. At the same time, I have enjoyed reading the opposing views of others on this blog who often make fast and lethal work of my opinions. I realize that the killing of Trayvon Martin is loaded with social and racial meaning. Yet, this site is dedicated to tolerance and diversity of views in discussing the legal and policy issues of our times. I hope that those who stated that they would leave the site will return and rejoin our discussion. This is a blog that values differing opinions and free thought. This is a chorus not a solo performance and it is the variety of voices and views that makes this blog so unique.
Here is today’s print column:
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.
With the verdict, the Zimmerman case entered the realm of legal mythology — a tale told by different groups in radically different ways for different purposes. Fax machines were activated with solicitations and sound bites programmed for this moment.
Criminal cases often make for easy and dangerous vehicles for social expression. They allow longstanding 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. Zimmerman and Martin became proxies in our unresolved national debate over race.
Many have condemned this jury and some even called for the six jurors to be killed or demanded that they “kill themselves.” The fact is that this jury had little choice given the case presented by the prosecutors. This is why I predicted full acquittal before the case even went to the jury.
Before the case is lost forever to the artistic license of social commentary, it is worth considering what the jurors were given, or not given.
State attorney’s misstep
The problem began at the start. Many of us 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 interviewed a key witness at the Martin home in the presence of the family — a highly irregular practice.
The decision to push the second-degree murder charge (while satisfying many in the public) was legally and tactically unwise. The facts simply did not support a claim beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman acted with intent and a “depraved mind, hatred, malice, evil intent or ill will.” Had Corey charged manslaughter, the case might have turned out differently.
The prosecutors then made that bad decision of charges worse by overplaying their evidence to overcome the testimony of their own witnesses.
For example, the prosecution inexplicably decided to lead the case with testimony of Martin’s friend Rachel Jeantel. Jeantel was a disaster, admitting to lying previously under oath and giving conflicted testimony. She also stated that just as Zimmerman was accused of calling Martin a derogatory name, Martin called Zimmerman a “cracker.”
The prosecution’s zeal for conviction seemed to blind it to the actual strengths and weakness of the case. It also led to allegations of withholding key evidence from the defense to deny its use at trial, though Judge Debra Nelson seemed to struggle to ignore the alleged misconduct.
Some questions unanswered
Ultimately, 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 judgment or guesses on verdicts.
While many have criticized Zimmerman for following Martin, citizens are allowed to follow people in their neighborhood. 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 Martin was on top of Zimmerman and said they believed that Zimmerman was the man calling for help. Zimmerman had injuries. Not serious injuries but injuries from the struggle. Does that mean that he was clearly the victim? No. It does create added doubt on the use of lethal force.
A juror could not simply assume Zimmerman was the aggressor. 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.
Even for manslaughter, the jury was told that Zimmerman was justified in the use of force if he feared “great bodily harm.” That brought the jury back to the question of how the fight unfolded.
The acquittal does not even mean that the jurors liked Zimmerman or his actions. It does not even mean 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 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.
July 15, 2013
Excellent article Elaine!
Although I thought GZ was wrong…. Based upon what I read… A MS was the only charge hat was appropriate….. As I said early on… It was a case for the prosecutors to lose….
What George Zimmerman Can Do Now
By Charles P. Pierce
7/14/13
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/The_End_Of_The_Daily_Trayvon
Excerpt:
Calm is prevailing. For now. At least, that’s something.
However, in theory, at least, here is what is now possible. Some night very soon, if he so chooses, George Zimmerman can load his piece, tuck it into the back of his pants, climb into his SUV, and drive around Sanford, Florida looking for a**holes and f*cking punks who are walking through neighborhoods where he, George Zimmerman, defender of law and order, doesn’t think they belong. He can drive around Sanford, Florida and check out anyone who is dressed in such a manner as might frighten the average citizen who has been fed a daily diet of “Scary Black Kids” by their local news and by their favorite radio personalities, and who is dressed in such a manner as might seem inappropriate to their surroundings as determined by George Zimmerman, crimebuster. He can drive around Sanford, Florida until he spots an a**hole or a f*cking punk and then he can get out of his SUV, his piece tucked into the back of his pants, and he can stalk the a**hole or the f*cking punk, the one who is in the wrong neighborhood, or who is dressed inappropriately, at least according to George Zimmerman, protector of peace. If the a**hole, or the f*cking punk, turns around and objects to being stalked — or, worse, if the a**hole, or the f*cking punk, decides physically to confront the person stalking him — then George Zimmerman can whip out the piece from the back of his pants and shoot the a**hole, or the f*cking punk, dead right there on the spot. This can happen tonight. That is now possible. Hunting licenses are now available and it’s open season on a**holes, f*cking punks, and kids who wear hoodies at night in neighborhoods where they do not belong, at least according to George Zimmerman, defender of law and order, crimebuster, and protector of the peace, because that is what American society has told George Zimmerman, and all the rest of us, is the just outcome of what happened on one dark and rainy night in February of 2012.
The judgment, when it finally came, was a dull and predictable thing. Pictures of Trayvon Martin showing off on his Facebook page trumped pictures of him on the ground, blank-staring at the night sky, a hollow point through his chest, the way so many of us hoped they wouldn’t, but suspected they would. It was hard at that moment, when the jury gave George Zimmerman back his gun, to remember that this trial wasn’t supposed to happen at all. The Sanford P.D. was ready to hand Zimmerman back his gun with a fast shuffle until people got into the streets and suggested, loudly, that maybe the circumstances required another look. This is something that should be remembered now by all those sharp guys who talk about how the evidence cut both ways, and about how the prosecution overcharged the defendant, and about how well the defense mounted its case. There wasn’t supposed to be a trial at all. In theory, George Zimmerman could have been back, standing his post, watching for a**holes and f*cking punks, the very next night, according to the original assessment made by local law enforcement. Instead, people who filled George Zimmerman’s fevered definition of a**holes and f*cking punks roamed free, wearing their hoodies at will. The gated communities of Sanford have had to do without his watchful eye, and his ready aim, for longer than the Sanford police thought was suitable a year ago. I am glad the gated communities managed to survive the siege.
Thought experiments are useless now. Of course, if the races of the two participants were reversed, Trayvon Martin already would have been doing time. Of course, black kids have to walk through a world in which how they’re dressed is evidence against them, and how they behave when profiled by sanctioned (and manifestly incompetent) quasi-vigilantes is different from how all the rest of us are entitled to behave. They are prima facie a**holes and f*cking punks. Of course, black kids can’t win fights without getting shot through the chest. They are supposed to act very politely, speak when spoken to and, maybe, just get off the sidewalk when they come in contact with people like George Zimmerman, who is out on that wall because we want him on that wall. We need him on that wall.
And, of course, this was not about race because nothing is ever about race. The prosecutors even told us that it wasn’t about race. The defense won its case because this was not about race. The sharp guys and pundits will spend all weekend explaining how race was an element of the events that night, but that the case, ultimately, was not about race. And because this case was not about race, nothing out of our history counts, because our history, here in the land of the free, is not about race, either. Because our history is not about race, a few weeks ago, when the Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act, what happened on the Edmund Pettus Bridge was not relevant. Because our history is not about race, last night, Emmett Till was not relevant, even though a few people inconveniently brought him up. But that was years ago, and the country has changed, and it is John Roberts’ Day Of Jubilee, and this trial was not about race because nothing is about race any more.
The mental gymnastics some people will go through to justify their racism is astounding.
“Some expert legal analyst believe that 85% of court cases are won and done with the jury selection.” (See wikipedia’s jury selection site).
Knowing this, is it safe to assume that an all black (or majority black) jurors would have convicted Zimmerman?
Furthermore, knowing this about the significance of the jury selection, it truly doesn’t matter how much evidence, whether or not the prosecution overcharged this case, or if the prosecution were sloppy or made errors, the case was ‘won and done’ after 5 of 6 jurors were white.
Shut up, Dredd! I worked for almost a decade in criminal appeals in Chicago. I am one of a very small group of attorneys in this country that have overturned a felony conviction, by successfully proving that a criminal jury was selected in a racist manner. (People v. Kirk vis a vis Batson v. Kentucky). Moreover, when I was a varsity basketball player at a high school which had two major race riots and an active Black Panther Party group, I was warned by one of my black teammates, prior to the second staged riot that: “Rick, tomorrow you’re white.” A well-received warning because I was known in my large urban high school as one of the few that moved between the racial groups. Today, I do not actively practice law. I teach middle school students in one of the most hard scrabble neighborhoods in my state. More than 90% are non-white, more than 90% qualify for free and reduced lunch. When the Zimmerman case exploded in the spring of 2012, many of my students bought into the MSM propaganda. We have a heavy gang presence in my school. I brought out the evidence of the Zimmerman case, as opposed to the propaganda, and many, if not most, of my students told me that we haven’t heard this. I told them that based on the facts of the case George Zimmerman would not be successfully prosecuted. Game, set, match. Three days ago, a young black man, aged 17 (Trayvon’s age) was gunned down two blocks from the school where I teach. Where was Al Sharpton? Where were marches down Payne Avenue? Where were the “no justice, no peace” chants.” Nowhere, because “Mo” Rollins was gunned down by the person most likely to murder another young black American–another black American. Since 1976, 94% of all black Americans murdered have been murdered by other black Americans. George Zimmerman mentored two black children, unpaid, whose father was serving a life sentence for 1st degree murder. Nobody mentions that. Zimmerman is a Democrat who voted for Obama. Nobody mentions that. I am sick and tired of listening to mock-pundits like you, Dredd. You have no clue and you don’t walk the mean streets of our republic. By the way, where was Trayvon’s “family” on the night of his demise. He was kicked out of his mother’s house, and traveled from Miami to Sanford to his father’s latest girlfriend. He was alone that night. Exactly, like the vast majority of black students. Instead of hanging with his family watching the 2012 NBA All-Star Game, he left his father’s girlfriend’s house to purchase some snacks. A troubled teenager was left alone by his “family”. Trayvon had no family. In fact, officials were unable to contact his family for almost 48 hours to claim and identify his body. The real legacy of this case is not a not guilty verdict, but the reluctance of this republic to acknowledge the cultural holocaust which is occurring in our black communities. Finally, I have two words for Al Sharpton: Tawana Brawley. Just sayin’. Over and out.
As I have said all along Trayvon was railroaded by the prosecution with intent to lose. The charge should have been murder with death penalty sought and instead it was a circus of charges and bumbled evidence. This guy did not stand his ground, he was hunting blacky in the south, did you really expect justice and a good trial? Really? Who cares what Zimmerman story was, there was a story because of his actions. He looks like he self inflicted the wounds, requiring a band aid. He pumped this kid with a 9mm and did not even reach over to revive him as he bled out. So now every murderer will shoot someone, punch himself in the face a few times and claim self defense. This media circus only diffuses you from seeing those evading justice are the white cracker banksters and politicians who have robbed hundreds of millions of American’s of 50% of their home values and evaded charges of ECONOMIC TERRORISM (a war and eugenics crime) that has led to millions of suffering and deaths. Hows bout our leaders war crimes that kill and drone millions worldwide in illegal wars of aggression or their torture of innocent people and detentions like Gitmoschwitz. The people should be rioting in the streets but not over this poor boy but the whole damn corrupt system and the 1% gaining from it. Oh where oh where has the Justice gone in our country, it looks like it has been hijacked by criminals.
davidm2745.
I do not think that it is safe to assume that the prosecution actually wanted to win.
Professor, why do you criticise Rachael Jeantel for using the word “cracker”. If Travon used this word surely she was obligated not to hide the fact.
Mr. Turley, I applaud your ability to be rational, providing clear legal analysis, despite your desire for a different outcome.
I thought Angela Corey offered terrible commentary after the verdict. It had the aire of “we put him on trial like everybody wanted, and now we have the results… it was a good trial, thank you everybody, this is what you wanted.” I speculate that Zimmerman was innocent, yet even I was nauseated by her comments. I can only imagine how those who believed Zimmerman is guilty, those who she was fighting for, would feel about it.
“Various witnesses said Martin was on top of Zimmerman and said they believed that he was the man calling for help. “
Professor, in the sentence above to whom does the personal pronoun “he” refer. To me it is ambiguous does it refer to TM or to GZ.
Lost a regular or two?
Fear not Professor!
The best of us will remain here to point out to you the errors in your thinking. Please take comfort from that thought 🙂
.
There is nothing in the Constution that forbids people from being unbelievably stupid or reckless.
In the particular circumstances of the night and in the particular dark location that it ended, Zimmerman totally fails the “reasonable or prudent person in the same circumstances” test.
He fails it in following blindly into the dark on the heels of someone (now unseen) that he later claimed had just circled his truck in a threatening manner with hand in waistband, etc. He said that the person’s actions had alarmed him so much that he had wound up his window to avoid a confrontation.
He fails it in remaining exposed out in the dark on that path after explicitly saying in the NEN that he realised that the person – that he later claimed had just circled his truck in a threatening manner with hand in waistband, etc. – could be close by in the dark.
Remarkable inconsistencies between his accounts – for example of what was said in the NEN – could be put down to stress and bad memory.
However…..
Perhaps you have a theory as to why having been asked to report on Martin’s actions, he did not mention the threatening circling that he later claimed was taking place right as he was being asked to report on what was happening.
Perhaps your theory might be that Zimmerman was so traumatised by this threatening circling that his brain could not make his mouth move. If that is the theory, perhaps you have a theory as to why on the Hannity Show, he said that he was “not particularly” alarmed by Martin’s actions.
.
Any reasonable and prudent person should agree that Zimmerman’s actions in following blind and remaining there were extremely reckless.
It is clear to me from the Hannity Show, that O’Mara very probably took this view.
The Hannity Show was used to change the story so that Zimmerman would appear not or less reckless. He drops the ‘circling’ story. He says that the was “not particularly” alarmed by Martin’s actions.
This is a tightrope act. He has to try balance asserting less threat from Martin while still portraying Martin as the sort of thug who would attack him.
The Hannity Show was also used to push a story in which Zimmerman’s actions were no cause for an innocent person to feel alarm. Martin is no longer running. Hannity queries. Zimmerman confirms. Not alone ‘not running’ but also ‘not in fear’. Even Hannity has a problem eating that one.
.
The only reason a manslaughter charge would fail would be that the law absolutely prevents consideration of Zimmerman’s reckless ( and provocative) actions in the immediate lead-up to the encounter.
These actions would include Zimmerman lingering in the area for nearly 2 minutes before the encounter despite insisting that he did not delay.
The Hannity Interview is particularly interesting
http://zimmermanscall.blogspot.com/p/hannity-interview.html
I watched more of the televised drama than I should have. This article articulates the various aspects of the case and the national debate as well as anyone has and is exceptional. I had never seen the jurors, so I did not know what we had here other than what was described. I would expect a jury of 12 to acquit but I do not trust a jury system of less than 12.
I have a couple of comments about some aspects not discussed. The witnesses. Some admitted lying in the past like the first witness. But the police were very honest. Their police chief got fired over this case. Some outsider comes in to prosecute and over charges Z. The police were straight. They deserve protection from firing. In California there is a statute denominated as Police Bill of Rights. In New Jersey there is a statute for all state employees, not municipal, which protects whistleblowers. I point that out because some states have no protection of police for telling the truth, whether in court under oath or in reporting corruption. In this case the prosecution was a persecution. The Chief gets fired for not following some racial profile script expected when a young black kid gets killed in what the nutcases portray as his line of duty: going out minding his own business, walking as he pleased, to get his Skiddles. The weenies who get assigned to the case from out of town follow the party line. The police who investigated the case do not lie, exaggerate, hide facts or change their opinions. Serino told the truth and he told his opinion as to his opinion on Z’s veracity. Lead detectives have to form opinions as to the veracity of suspects and other witnesses. This is the key to crime investigation. His boss got fired for following the collective wisdom of the police investigation. If Serino gets fired we need to protect his rights.
I said before that the key factor in the case is age not race, and criminal disposition not race. A young person wandering a neighborhood and looking in windows is suspect. Trayvon was not a meter reader. The sauntering, the cell phone, the window shopping, the hoodie, and then the assault on Z are indicative of a punk, a hood, a gang member. Those of you who have not lived in or near a gang neighborhood can be clueless and are the first to fall into the Crump apCray. The nation got sold a bill of goods by the Crump team early on–both with the photos and the race based mantras.
The best spokesperson on television “for he system”, in the time since the verdict, has been Robert Zimmerman. I was especially please when he put that twink from Liverpool named Piers in his place on CNN two nights ago.
The worst spokesperson for the race baiters is the head of the NAACP with the weird last name of Jealous. He is demanding that the Justice Department continue the persecution of Zimmerman. If they do file anything against him I will change political party and vote for a RepubliCon for President if that candidate opposes this apCray. Obama, you better get outta the gutter on this one. Zimmerman is a minority and has been treated like one. There are those here in Florida who think he is both Jewish and Hispanic and hate him for both. This is something that is avoided like the plague on CNN. Whitey Bulger would have been treated much better in Seminole County and the Orlando area and much better on CNN. Florida has shown its failings. The firing of the Chief, the appointment of the prosecution team, the over charging, the race card game, all put Florida within the characterization of a Pirate Territory. If you are 65, live in Neward, need to go somewhere to retire and avoid taxes, think again if you have entertained Florida as a retirement destination. Z’s female neighbor, who was a witness, in the case had her house ransacked and herself in fear of the punk pirates who invaded her home. It was her experience which motivated Z to report this Trayvon punk to the cops and observe him on his so called Skiddle run. Because of this prosecution (persecution) you wont see any neighbors watching out for you in Florida anymore.
How does the legal community expect civilians to understand the jury instructions? If I remember Casey Anthony instructions were the size of a novel. Just the Manslaughter charge in the GZ trial was 28 pages. How are we suppose to make any sense of these instructions in deliberating and wanting to come to a just verdict?
JT reminded us:
(italics added). Acquittal in Zimmerman is a characteristic of the Rodney King case, and a few others.
The ebb and flow of racial tension at work is the sensation.
The State v Zimmerman case is the type of case where the racial tension often overflows into harmful rhetoric and worse.
I said I would accept the verdict, and I do accept it.
I also would accept a federal court verdict against Zimmerman and officials in Florida who perpetuate racial hatred, yet that seems unlikely.
The downside is that the Zimmerman case keeps our minds off the military NSA case and the, IMO, more important lawsuit taking place in the federal court (ACLU v Clapper et. al.).
However, I do understand the importance of moving forward in the abysmal state of racial inequality in this nation as well:
(The Germ Theory – of Government – 7). One thing is for sure, JT, your blog “got game.”
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.
Shame on you for your opinion in this case, e\v
Here is illustrated the difference between ‘legal’ and ‘moral’. A 17 year old is dead and there are really no witnesses. The jury had conflicting testimony, all of it opinion. They had to presume innocence. They are not at fault. Could the prosecution have done a better job?
Professor, your assessment of the case is on point. I’m an attorney in Jacksonville, Florida. I listened to much of the testimony on line while working at my desk. I was surprised at the prosecution’s case because of all inconsistencies I could pick out while listening. The jury instructions were also confusing making self-defense a viable option.
Legally you’ll never get a conviction, but this guy had a gun, and a kid is dead….it should never have come to that….