One of the most damaging moments for the prosecution in the trial of George Zimmerman trial was the inexplicable decision to lead with Rachel Jeantel, a friend of Trayvon Martin’s. Jeantel proceeded to admit to previously lying and then gave conflicted and at points unintelligible testimony. Her statement that Martin called Zimmerman a “cracker” further helped the defense in balancing the derogatory statements of Zimmerman. After the verdict, Jeantel has made statements that seem unhinged and again raise the question on why the prosecutors would place her so prominently in their case in chief. The latest controversy is a new allegation from Jeantel that she warned Trayvon that Zimmerman might be a gay rapist. She is not the only person associated with the trial who seems to be courting the press in the case with disastrous results.
In an interview with Piers Morgan, she said “People need to understand, he didn’t want that creepy ass cracka going to his father or girlfriend’s house to go get — mind you, his little brother is there. Mind you I told you, I told Trayvon, [Zimmerman] might have been a rapist.”
In a truly bizarre interview, Morgan asks Jeantel to school him on the correct spelling and meaning of such terms as “cracka” and “nigga.”
Jeantel called the verdict “BS” and said “Well, the jury, they see their facts. My thoughts of the jury, they old, that’s old school people. We in a new school, our generation, my generation. So –”
Morgan then appears to turn into a cultural anthropologist and asked clinically:
“Let’s talk about ‘creepy ass cracka.’ People have said that that is a phrase used by black people, cracka, to describe a white person. Is that true?
JEANTEL: No! Like I said —
MORGAN: How do you spell it, first of all?
JEANTEL: Cracka.
MORGAN: There’s no ‘e-r,’ right?
JEANTEL: No, it’s an ‘a’ at the end.
MORGAN: C-r-a-c-k-a.
JEANTEL: Yeah. And that’s a person who act like they’re a police [officer], who, like a security guard who acting like — that’s what I said to them. Trayvon said creepy ass cracka.
MORGAN: It means he thought it was a police or a security guard?
JEANTEL: Yeah, he acting like the police. And then he keep telling me that the man is still watching him. So, if it was a security guard or a policeman, they would come up to Trayvon and say, ‘Do you have a problem? Do you need help?’ You know, like normal people.
Once again, it is unclear why Jeantel did not emphasize the concern over a male rape on the stand. One could almost feel the prosecutor cringing at the interview with so many questioning their judgment in relying so heavily on Jeantel.
While on the subject of people behaving badly from the case (a rather long list), there is juror B-37 who announced in an interview that she was going to write a book and had enlisted an agent. She even named her agent as Sharlene Martin. After an outcry over the effort to profit from the case (not to mention a pretty limited foundation for a book). Martin tweeted that juror B37 had regained her sanity and dropped the plans for a book (that was going to be co-written by her attorney husband). She explained that the isolation of being sequestered “shielded me from the depth of pain that exists among the general public over every aspect of this case.”
Really? It took this long to figure out that there was pain over the verdict. What tipped you off after you arranged for an interview, went to the interview, and announced your book? Was it the mass protests in various cities or continuing coverage on television. Ironically, she actually proved the accuracy of West’s disastrous joke in his opening statement: “Knock, knock. Who’s there? George Zimmerman. George Zimmerman who? Congratulations, you’re on the jury.” The joke was bizarre first because you should never cut jokes in a murder trial opening statement with a dead teenage boy. Second, if the jury got the joke, they would realize they were the punch line. The point is that only morons or cave-dwelling recluses would not know anything about the case. Well then walked in juror B-37.
Source: Real Clear Politics
juris/nick:
my father in-law, an old country lawyer type, says Zimmerman took 2 lie-detector tests and passed each one given days apart by 2 different techs. Is that true?
He also said Eric Holder is now the most dangerous man in America. Hyperbole?
nick spinelli 1, July 16, 2013 at 2:45 pm
The incidents I read about and saw reported were in LA and Oakland. Vandalism in Oakland, including breaking windows on a police cruiser. Crowds failing to disperse in LA w/ cops using bean bag projectiles to disperse the crowd. There may have been more?
===========================
The LA incident is a fabrication according to a good journalist who lives there.
It is a cover-up type distraction for what is coming and what is already here.
Hi everyone. I just got back and saw all of the controversy over the use of “riot” in the blog. I saw clips of people taking over intersections as well as destruction of property on television. But I removed the term because it is a distraction. I simply was expressing how clueless this juror sounded.
As for people leaving the blog because of my views of the case, I regret any departures but this site strives for an array of views and opinions. That type of free exchange may not appeal to everyone. As a legal commentator, I try to offer analysis objectively, including analysis on trial strategy and the impact of witnesses. The blog often speaks objectively, even clinically, about litigation. This is a case that is heavily infused by the passions of people on both sides. However, I give people the benefit of the doubt that they are speaking from a good faith perspective of the facts and not some racial or personal bias. We are committed on this blog to refraining from personal attacks and recriminations simply because we disagree on the merits. Again, that may not appeal to everyone. We will be here for anyone who wants to return if they find greater value in our type of forum. If not, thanks for contributing and best of luck in your search for the right blog or blogs.
Sorry nick, I support bettykath in her observations and will miss her and I fully understood the disgust Marisha verbalized.
As to the 100-150 people in L A constituting a riot … get real … you get no response from me because it’s just too ridiculous … I was at Kent State during the days that led up to the Massacre and before that in Cleveland during the Hough Riots (’66). Honest to God, nick, I’m not trying to be a smarta$$ but that L.A. reference as a riot was just dam funny.
Gene, I pick the “sour grapes for not getting a confirmation bias affirmed” basis.
Bob, Esq. 1, July 16, 2013 at 5:46 pm
Rodney King was about racism. This was about whether a man committed manslaughter.
I find the desire to read race into this case almost as interesting as the case itself.
================================
Indeed.
It is as interesting as trying to read race out of it.
Both are symptomatic of American history.
BettyyKath,
I echo Rafflaw’s comment. I enjoy your and many others contributions. Many times I have read your comments and thought them well considered and valuable in understanding a topic under discussion. Please reconsider.
I have casually followed the Zimmerman case. I am not familiar with all of the minutiae that some of the posters on this blog invariably are knowledgeable about. That being said, I still have a couple of observations.
First, I think the criticism of the prosecutor’s for charging more than manslaughter is legitimate. That being said, I think the numerous criticisms from many fronts about the prosecutor’s mis-steps is a bit unfair.
The potential for a strongly supported charge of murder 2d degree was in my view largely foreclosed by the woeful failure of the police department to appropriately investigate the case from the beginning. The police, whether out of familiarity with Zimmerman, racism or some other combination of reasons, were more than satisfied with Zimmerman’s contention that he was the victim and was justified in his use of lethal force. At a minimum, the circumstances were ambiguous. Where there is a dead teenager and ambiguity about how the events leading up to the firing of the fatal shot transpired, a more thorough investigation should have been pursued immediately. The fact that Zimmerman was interviewed and then free to go and the subsequent police department comments seemingly characterizing the shooting as justified was not I submit a model of police professionalism. Furthermore, in excerpted snippets of testimony from police department witnesses at trial, it appeared that police witnesses were bending over backward to cast Zimmerman in a favorable light. Cops, and particularly detectives, are professional witnesses. They can easily help or hinder a prosecutor’s case based on how they testify. If the police witnesses are perceived by one or more members of the jury to have sympathy for the defendant and the defense case, it will be a hard row to hoe for the prosecution to secure an as charged conviction.
One might reasonably wonder, if the neighbors that dialed 911 and reported a fight/shooting and upon police response found an adolescent black male in a hoody with a gun who was contending that he shot the deceased in self defense, whether the police would have been so quick to conclude that the killing was lawful self defense. I suspect that Trayvon would have at minimum, been booked into jail while the investigation was pursued. I guess the one good thing that can be said at the conclusion of this case is that Sanford Florida has a new police chief and hopefully she will institute policy and instill a culture of objective professionalism that will serve the community better in the future.
“One of the most damaging moments for the prosecution in the trial of George Zimmerman trial was the inexplicable decision to lead with Rachel Jeantel …”
Indeed.
Some jury trial experts I have known and worked with, who were prosecutors in their day, liked to lead off with one of the best, if not the best, witnesses.
“Best” in the context of the flavor of “that jury”, always reminding me that it would be difficult to sit two juries that were exactly alike in a short span of time (“never assume a jury is like the last one, or will be like the next one”).
They liked to end the same way, with one of the best witnesses.
What Miss Jeantel did was remind everyone, including the two juries, of the two distinct cultures in the United States.
Two cultures that have always lived across a wide gulf from one another.
That had a lasting imact on the jury.
Rodney King was about racism. This was about whether a man committed manslaughter.
I find the desire to read race into this case almost as interesting as the case itself.
I may disagree with our host from time to time, both publicly and privately, but I will state unequivocally that any notion he is a racist is without merit and egregiously wrong. He has tirelessly promoted equal rights for all and I think the record is so conclusive on that matter that to question it is merely foolish or sour grapes for not getting a confirmation bias affirmed over what has become an emotionally charged case over race when race was never the issue at bar – only in the media.
Juris, You are correct. My old man taught me it was strength to admit you’re wrong, not weakness. And, that was not so long ago the norm. Of late, our culture seems to more and more see admitting you’re wrong as a weakness. Politicians are the WORST in this regard.
AY, It was close on manslaughter. If the prosecutor wasn’t a politician, and charged Zimmerman w/ manslaughter originally, they make have gotten a conviction. According to CNN the juries first vote was 3 to 3 for a manslaughter conviction. Halfway through their case the prosecution saw they were no where near 2nd degree; they never were. So, they focused on the manslaughter after that. Obviously too late. We’re seeing ZDS[Zimmerman Derangement Syndrome] reaching epidemic status.
Nick, some people just can’t accept it when they are wrong. We are all wrong about things at one time or another. The biggest hurdle to intellect is realizing when that time is and acknowledging it. Some, I think, are simply not able, like my father. Thank goodness for my wife there is hope for me.
Nick,
Part of me was hopeful that a MS case would have been returned…. But, after hearing the states lead witness ….. And the intentional wrongs of the prosecutor….. They returned the only just verdict they could have….
SWM, What about the LA Times article, that’s the issue. You were scoffing and Blouise was denying. But, that’s all small potatoes. Read my comments w/ bettykath over the last few days. We’re very cool. I’m not questioning Blouise’s independent thinking or yours. My issue w/ you and Blouise was specific to the LA Times article, about which neither of you have spoken. Again, when people avoid a subject is when I know it’s important. There is not and was not mass rioting. But that article comports w/ what was said in the post.
AY, I believe we have fallen down the rabbit hole.
I haz amuze dat mi comment follozz directly ater de wurdz “Hopefully, normalcy will return soon.”
Blouise, Are you speaking of my comments about Mr. Turley? I am not worshipping him, I worship no one on earth. I’m merely stating my support.
Unlike I surmise most everyone here, I have had discussions on this trial w/ black men, 3 so far. They’re friends and we often disagree strongly on topics from sports to politics to race. The 3 guys I’ve spoken w/ have some different attitudes about this case, but more agreement. One of them is an attorney. The attorney has the same take on the CASE..not all the baggage, but the CASE, as does Mr. Turley. To varying degrees, they say that a white person like myself cannot truly know what it’s like to be a black man in a situation like this. I agree totally. We’ve had this discussion previously. The other 2 guys think the state proved manslaughter. We all agree the state overreached charging 2nd degree. We all agree that this was also, to a certain extent, about testosterone and two guys w/ chips on their shoulders. Unfortunately, one of them was armed. And we all agree Zimmerman was a cop wannabe. None of these men are willing to call Zimmerman a racist. One said “he probably is” but would need more info. They use that word sparingly, more sparingly than many white folk. However, all 3 say Martin’s race and HIS AGE were factors in Zimmerman following him. They have pointed out to me in the past that life gets easier for a black man as he gets older. And that it is incumbent upon black father’s to teach their sons that important lesson. Unfortunately, when black men are most @ risk is when they are the point in their lives when they are the biggest risk takers. C’est la vie. This conversation was not heated, testy a bit, but not heated. We know each other and trust each other. I would have thought Mr. Turley had built some trust here. For some, apparently not.
I’m confused here…. Why is this witness still being courted by the news shows….. I would have guessed that the jury could have come down with a weak MS….. But when your own witness, major witness tanks your case…. How do you save it….. I’m beginning to see that this witness is possibly racist…. Was Martin racist too? It’s been suggest hat GZ was…. But only after MSNBC altered the tapes….. Now, I’m more confused with the stats case to start with….. And the chief prosecutor to fire an investigator for divulging that there was more that had not been disclosed…. I hope no one lose has to ever go through a case where the prosecutor has intentionally withheld information….. What was the lead case… Brady…… The more I read about this case, the more I’m upset with he state…..
It seems some people have have been more critical of Jeantal than they have of Zimmerman who was on trial for killing a Black teenager.
*****
A Teenager Named Rachel Jeantel
11 July 2013
By Ife Johari, SpeakOut | Op-Ed
http://www.truth-out.org/speakout/item/17512-a-teenager-named-rachel-jeantel
Excerpt:
By now the world knows the name of the young woman who was the last person to speak to Trayvon Martin: Rachel Jeantel. Rachel has been thrown head on into the public eye in a way that NONE of us would ever want for ourselves. Imagine what it must be like: a high school student talking on the phone to one of your friends like you would normally do…then all of a sudden your friend is dead and your world is turned into a legal whirlwind! Watching her tell the story of the last time she spoke to her friend Trayvon was painful. Watching defense attorney Don West questioning her, often times it was easy to forget that Zimmerman is the one who is on trial and not Ms. Jeantel. Rachel was judged very harshly by the public as people generally have a way of being overly critical, judgmental and just plain mean. Judging Rachel as if she should have been born ready to testify in court and to play any part in this legal system who is in no way on her side. What I saw was a young woman who knew the defense team was against her and out to discredit her, she knew that Don West had a particular impatience and dislike for her. Many people highlighted her behavior and her dislike and impatience for Don West but that feeling was definitely not one sided. She knew it, she felt it and she wasn’t afraid to show it to the world with her famous response—”that’s real retarded, sir”. She was standing up for herself and I was proud of her for doing so.
The media is not focused on reporting the strength and pain of who this young woman on the stand was… No… The media feeds the masses every negative criticism of her that has been said. From her level of education, the way she speaks, to even the way she wears her hair… all up for criticism. Highlighting the fact that she is a 19-year-old just entering into the 12th grade in high school. Highlighting that she can’t read or write in cursive. Never once questioning an education system that would allow a teenager to reach the 12th grade without knowing how to read or write in cursive. How did that happen? It seems that “no child left behind” has turned into “push them through the system and get them out of our hair”. One thing is for sure, reading or writing in cursive has nothing to do with the real life lessons she is learning through all of the happenings in her life now. I can only imagine.
None of us know what life was like for Rachel Jeantel before the world knew her name, before her friend was murdered, before she took the stand. None of us know what she has struggled with in her life, what her dreams may be, what and who she loves in life. Have her dreams in life changed since all of this has happened? These are the questions I would like to ask her.