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
Looking forward, hate crimes law will be the basis on the ongoing DOJ civil rights investigation.
It took years to modify the old hate crimes law:
(Leahy Says “Stand Up To Hate Crime” – 3). The quotes are from an email that Senator Leahy sent in 2009.
The bill passed the Congress and the President signed it (Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act).
This case is an example of what happens when the wrong people have hand guns in their possession. Even if Zimmerman’s claims are true, Is getting a broken nose or punched multiple times an excuse for shooting a gun at point blank range? No, a sane and reasonable person would have pulled the gun and told Martin to back off. He would not have then shot him. Zimmerman is a murderer and was lucky that there were no witnesses to his crime.
Ross, I completely agree.
Juliet, Good to see you back in the rotation.
“Florida’s gun laws, for instance, makes cases like this one likely and even inevitable. Would Zimmerman have left his car and followed Martin without the comfort of the cold steel strapped to his body? It’s unlikely. But
Florida’s laws are such that the kind of people who want to get out of their car and tail teenagers who scare them can carry guns when they do it, and Florida’s laws are such that if there’s then a confrontation and the gun goes off the person holding the gun is very likely to walk free. Ezra Klein
If people want something positive to come out of this tragedy change the laws.
Re: Nick Spinelli
You make some great points but you can also have good well-meaning people (cops, prosecutors, judges) working in a bad system that can produce genuinely evil results. Innocent people can be destroyed by this system.
For example: education/training, budget pressures, political pressures, etc. where doing the right thing can end a career or doing the wrong thing can result in promotion. All officials are human with a family, mortgage, etc. to consider. The system seems totally dysfunctional for regular citizens.
Not trying to demonize good people, but just trying to solve the problem using facts. Citizens harmed by this system have every right to criticize it.
Elaine, that is true. As you notice, I did not specify exactly who might end up dead or injured.
I suspect every one of our readers could give many horrible examples of cases they know about, where the wrong person ended up dead or maimed.
The world would be a boring place if everyone thought alike.
Otteray,
Some individuals end up dead or injured because of the recklessness and stupidity of others.
SlingTrebuchet sez, “There is nothing in the Constution that forbids people from being unbelievably stupid or reckless.”
*************************************************
Thank goodness! Every single one of us would be criminals if that were the law.
Many end up dead or injured because of stupidity and/or recklessness. Despite our best efforts, most of us survive, through no fault of our own.
@Ross
“American Violet” is not fiction, it is based on a real case from the town of Hearne. The woman involved took a great risk by refusing the proffered plea and going to trial where the African American presumption of guilt could could have resulted in a long sentence. She was very lucky she or her lawyer found evidence that the snitch involved was unreliable. Most Blacks or poor people who are merely factually innocent take a plea and do not risk the extreme sentences meted out to those who lose a ttrial.
It’s not over by a long “shot” – excuse the pun. The State did not put up a good case as they over charged Zimmerman. Of course he was not guilty of the charges they put up to the all female jury. It’s clearly a civil rights case which the Feds can prosecute and will.
And why allow a mostly white female jury? These are the same white women that prejudicially grasp their purses when black kids like Trayvon walk by them or get into an elevator with them with nothing more than a baseless fear of skin color and clothing choices. It was doomed to failure by Angela Corey. She is obviously an incompetent state attorney.
It’s obvious that GZ was not out hunting black kids to shoot. It was intentional but it was obviously a case of racially inspired rage not self-defense. Being that GZ was a MMA student and Trayvon was just a slightly taller skinny child, a gun was not needed. Maybe Trayvon got off a sucker-punch but GZ’s MMA should have kicked in. Bouncing his head off the payment doesn’t sound right. Too bad a polygraph or VSA is inadmissible in Florida courts.
Corey didn’t even bring in several eye-witnesses who claim they saw a SECOND man there (obviously Frank Taaffe). There where two woman standing in the dark with a flashlight who claim they saw something very different than what GZ is saying. However, SPD and Corey don’t like their testimony. Why??? One is not a citizen. Is that a problem?
And all of the defense eye and ear witnesses… do they have a financial stake in this? What power does Judge Zimmerman have over them to lie the way they ALL did? The Judge was very powerful back in Virginia and has friends in low and high places. Come on who screams for help when they have a loaded gun??!! Puleezz…! Everyone in the RATL community KNEW he had a gun as he was fired from watch capt by the condo president weeks before the incident at a condo meeting due to that damned gun a federal agent buddy helped him purchase from a Muslim man in town.
I guess it’s up to FBI’s SAIC Steven E. Ibison now. I hope he has enough evidence to move forward with the federal case against GZ. U.S. Attorney Robert O’Neill; and Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the U.S. Department of Justice – Civil Rights Division, Roy Austin, Jr. will have to take the ball from Corey and do a BETTER job of prosecuting a case.
A child was killed by a private citizen (not a watch capt) who ILLEGALLY stop and detained the child simply walking home in the rain. If the child had been a 17 year old girl who was of his dad’s race/ethnicity he would not have done this. The issue is NOT that he was armed. It was why did he single out this child and illegally detain him then shoot him when he was fully capable of using his MMA skills against someone he outweighed and out-skilled?
I posit that the gun was fired by someone else standing there with GZ and helped GZ tamper with evidence by doing self-inflicted head wounds. The whole incident started earlier when GZ claims he saw Trayvon looking in Frank Taaffe’s condo window. Do the math… it doesn’t add up!
There are many here who constantly, and often legitimately, deride prosecutors for misconduct, including but not limited to, not divulging exculpatory evidence. Even though I worked for a prosecutor’s office, I have always worked to be objective. The record here shows that vis a vis prosecutors. I have been tough on rogue prosecutions and prosecutors. I have always made the point that the tone is set by the lead/chief prosecutor. That is no revelation. The tone in a corporation is set by the CEO. In a school, the principal sets the tone. On a ball team, the coach or manager. The office where I worked the chief was tough and demanding. She would fire a prosecutor for withholding exculpatory evidence. I’ve said this here previously. Mr. Turley has, as he always does, shown intellectual honesty, continually pointing out the unethical way this prosecutor handled exculpatory evidence, and the incredible indifference shown by the trial judge. However, what I’ve not seen are the myriad of commenters who, under virtually any other circumstances would be saying what Mr. Turley has said. An inconvenient truth.
It was God’s plan:
The state overreached in trying to get a murder conviction when IMO at the very most was a voluntary manslaughter incident. The whole episode was ridiculous to begin with to the handling by the local government thugs (aka cops), the media and so fourth.
Whats funny is idiots to Sharpton, Jackson, Buchanan, Wooldridge and other liberal and conservative race obsessives want to make this a black vs white thing. When in fact Zimmerman is hispanic who aren’t really liked by the race-hustling Sharpton types nor the immigration racial nationalist Buchanan types.
Dismissing a law blog over a high-profile case seems to suggest one wasn’t here for the “law” part to begin with.
The verdict is what it could only be, given the evidence. And it stands as a blemish on the state of FL for allowing people such as George Zimmerman to walk around with concealed weapons. If I were a parent, Disney would be off the table forever.
There will be more George Zimmermans and more Travon Martins.
How about…
Someone follows you in the dark.
On encounter, you ask them what is going on.
They don’t give a response that is any way helpful.
Their hand goes for their waistband. (This is what Zimmerman says he did and demonstrates in Walk-Through and interviews. His hand goes for his right hip when he talks of reaching for his phone. )
So:
HANNITY: Yes. You said he started from almost the beginning in that 911 call, you said he came towards you, and he seemed to reach for something in his waistband. Did you think that was a gun?
ZIMMERMAN: I thought he was just trying to intimidate me.
HANNITY: To make you think that there is a gun?
ZIMMERMAN: A weapon.
HANNITY: Of some kind?
ZIMMERMAN: Possibly.
Hmmmmm.
Perhaps the threat of a gun from a stranger who had followed you in the dark might not be quite sufficient to make you angry enough to attack them, but…
I put it to you that you would at the very least feel somewhat irritated.
SlingT,
“The best of us will remain here to point out to you the errors in your thinking.”
—–
And I’m not going anywhere either
Isn’t the bigger issue here that most African-Americans and poor Defendants almost never receive a jury trial like Zimmerman received? Most poor Defendants are essentially threatened and coerced by prosecutors to accept a plea deal (even if the prosecutor is playing poker and bluffing). Most never receive a jury trial.
It’s not that Zimmerman didn’t receive a fair trial and the jury ruled correctly, but most African-Americans and poor Defendants don’t receive the presumption of innocence where the burden of proof is on the “accuser” to prove guilt (not the accused).
For example in the movie “American Violet” about an ACLU case, the police and prosecutors collude to game the system by threatening a single mother with several children with decades in prison. If she pleads “guilty” she is promised no jail time. This is the justice system most African-Americans and minorities experience – a very corrupt one!
Had the Sanford police entertained the idea that a crime may have happened instead of simply accepting Zimmerman’s story they may have found evidence that had disappeared by the time charges were laid 44 days later and maybe the trial may have had a different result.