The American Civil Liberties Union seems a bit less unified in the aftermath of the Zimmerman acquittal. I remain a huge admirer of the ACLU and its inspiring legacy in fighting for civil liberties in America. I also have great respect for ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero. However, the divisions evident on this civil liberties blog appears equally represented in that civil liberties institution. To the surprise of many, including myself, Romero sent a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder that seemed to clearly invite a civil rights or hate crime prosecution of George Zimmerman. The ACLU however has long taken the view that such prosecutions violate the double jeopardy clause of the Constitution. When the federal government does not like the outcome of a high-profile case, it can use the very same facts to bring another prosecution under a different crime. After sending the letter, however, the ACLU staff appear to have objected and sent out a conflicting position that such successive prosecutions are violative of constitutional principles.
As noted in the article below, the ACLU previously faced the same division and retraction in the aftermath of the Rodney King case — first supporting a federal prosecution and then denouncing it.
In his letter to Holder, Romero wrote:
“Last night’s verdict casts serious doubt on whether the legal system truly provides equal protection of the laws to everyone regardless of race or ethnicity. This case reminds us that it is imperative that the Department of Justice thoroughly examine whether the Martin shooting was a federal civil rights violation or hate crime.”
That would seem to clearly invite not just an investigation but possible prosecution under civil rights or hate crime laws. Indeed, the ACLU said such action was “imperative.”
Various civil libertarians cried foul and reminded the ACLU of its policy that “There should be no exception to double jeopardy principles simply because the same offense may be prosecuted by two different sovereigns.”
It was then that the powerful Washington DC office stepped in with a letter of its own to Holder stating that
“We are writing to clearly state the ACLU’s position on whether or not the Department of Justice (DOJ) should consider bringing federal civil rights or hate crimes charges as a result of the state court acquittal in the George Zimmerman case. The ACLU believes the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Constitution protects someone from being prosecuted in another court for charges arising from the same transaction. A jury found Zimmerman not guilty, and that should be the end of the criminal case.”
One could easily understand why Holder would be a tad confused (after all, he just went through mental gymnastics to excuse clear perjury by the National Intelligence Director James Clapper as a mere harmless lie under oath before the United States Congress. That had to leave some lasting cognitive damage). If the ACLU is opposed to such prosecutions, it is harm to understand the “imperative” described in Romero’s letter.
I have previously stated that I do not believe that there is a case for such a civil rights or hate crime prosecution. Indeed, Obama and Holder appear to know that when you read their statements warning citizens of the high burden in such cases. However, these prosecutions have also raised serious questions of double jeopardy despite the erosion of that protection by the federal courts. In this case, many people are outraged by the verdict and want the federal government to take a crack at Zimmerman. However such a prosecution would not only likely fail but it would be viewed as the Administration simply disagreeing with the results of a trial and jury verdict.
I have said from the first day of the indictment that Angela Corey had over-charged the case and I believe that the case might have come out differently had she charged it as a manslaughter. However, the record in the case does not come close to the record for past civil rights prosecutions. People want a do-over. The one thing that many on the different sides agree on is that Corey’s team did a poor job in the case. Yet, too often these federal prosecutions are used to “take another bite at the apple” after a high-profile and unpopular defeat.
I believe that the original letter of Romero was a mistake and contradicts the long commitment of the ACLU to the protection of citizens from successive prosecutions following acquittal. Former ACLU board member Michael Meyers joined many in criticizing Romero:
“The ACLU is out of line; a civil liberties organization is concerned with the accused getting a fair trial, which includes the right of effective counsel, due process and protection against double jeopardy. No government, much less an angry community, is entitled to a verdict to their liking . . . The ACLU is not the NAACP; the ACLU is the guardian of individual liberty, not a victims’ rights or racial grievance group.”
What do you think?
Source: Politico
I just read Zimmerman helped extricate a family from an overturned vehicle. Life is quite serendipitous.
It is nice to here someone say a positive word. We need more people like you.
SwM,
Sharp
Hmmm, Is that an old picture of Zimmerman?…. He looks absolutely beatific.
I meant to say: I did not say that all hispancis are white. However, there is ‘history’ between blacks and hispanics.
I think RWL has it right, until the follow up on jury of his “peers” comes along. It’s a shame that after giving an excellent, short exposition, one race-neutral in nature, RWL’s analysis gets ruined by essentially implying a jury of White folks (and that Hispanics consider themselves White), didn’t convict Z because the victim was black.
A jury of “peers” means other citizens of a defendant’s “community”, be that community a county or division for a federal court jury. Not the same ethnicity, economic status, educational status, etc. That’s how it came down from the Common Law, and was later tweaked and perfected in the U.S. Is it perfect? No, but its only as fallible as the nature of Man.
Warspite,
Apparently, you need to reread my comments. I gave three perspectives of this case/tragedy: Non-racial, Racial, and Hypocritical. My comment white jury + black victim + white defendant = not guilty verdict is an illustration as to how racism is involved in this case. Everyone knows that an all black jury, under the same circumstances/scenario, would have given Zimmerman a guilty of 2nd degree murder verdict. Hence, did the white jurors judge the case based upon evidence or racial makeup of the victim, defendant, and their own prejudices & bias toward young, black teenagers in America? Would an all black jury do the same? I think you know the answer to that…..
I did not all hispanics are white. I said that some of the hispanics that I grew up with and went to school, including college, had no problem identifying themseles as black hispancis (as one of the jurors did, according to FoxNews and CNN). However, very rarely do you hear most blacks, identifying themselves as black-hispanic, especially if they (blacks) can only speak the english language.
Prosecutorial misconduct (or incompetence) should be the primary focus for an investigation, not Zimmerman. Irony is subjecting Zimmerman to double-jeopardy may harm far more African-Americans and minorities longterm.
Why did the prosecutors blow the case?
It’s rare to get through the day, especially since the Zimmerman verdict came down, without hearing the now common lament, “The court system is broken.” The response from some within its fold that “We are a nation of laws” has lost its punch, because the increasingly elusive “law” is no longer meekly accepted as a superior, Oz-like entity beyond question. Why it ever was in the first place is mystifying. Many restless people are hoping to find more than an occasional shred of a reason to feel otherwise.
“Blacks and Hispanics commit 96 percent of all crimes in the city, he says, but only 85 percent of the stop-and-frisks are of blacks and Hispanics.”
Those percentages sound compelling until you start looking at the actual numbers.
Mayor Bloomberg alleges that minorities are identified by witnesses in 90% of murders. He uses that claim to justify the tactic of ‘stop and frisk’. We should remember that ‘stop and frisk’ is not based on a description of the actual perpetrator.
In 2012 there were approximately 420 murders in NYC (FBI documents 419 murders for 2012, PDNYC 417 murders for 2012, and NBC news 414 murders through 12/28./2012).
The question is how many perpetrators committed those approximately 420 murders. I could not find data specific to NYC. But DOJ publishes a study that shows nationwide, since 1985 there are about 8.3 perpetrators for 7.4 murders for a ratio of 1.12. That ratio suggest perhaps 470 perpetrators for 420 murders in NYC in 2012. Clearly we would like to have better data on the number of perpetrators.
Of the, perhaps, 470 perpetrators of murder, Mayor Blumberg tells us 90% are identified as minority for a total of 423 minority individuals accused of murder.
Allegations against 423 minority persons are used to justify stop and frisk against approximately 4,482 million African American and Hispanic minority citizens of New York City.
Of those approximately 4.5 million minority persons approximately 10 or 11% are males between the ages of 15 and 29, inclusive for a total of approximately 500 thousand young minority males.
Mayor Boomberg tells us that allegations against 423 minorities justify strong action in the form of ‘stop and frisk’ against 500,000 young minority males and 4.5 million minorities of all ages and both sexes.
Nobody objects to stops based on a ‘look-out;’ a description of the alleged perpetrator. Nobody objects to stops based on probable cause.
But racism, in part, is the use of allegations against a few to stigmatize or take action against an entire group.
Stopping 4.5 million African Americans and Hispanics, with special focus on 500,000 young minority men on the basis of allocations against 423 minorities is the very essence of racism.
‘Stop and frisk’ is shameful racism. It ought to be a crime.
I forgot to add: under the racial perspective, one must also include the fact that Zimmerman was found not guilty by jurors ‘of his peers’ (5 of 6 jurors were white, and the other juror was hispanic-most black people will not identify themselves as black-hispanic).
I also meant to say that this has become ‘the American Way’.
Those who see race as a motivation in George Zimmerman’s following and pursuing Trayvon Martin seem to already be consumed with race in every aspect of daily life.
George Zimmerman, someone who had been known for helping black people prior to this case, was overly hysterical and paranoid based on their neighborhood’s past experiences with many break-ins and burglaries. He overreacted, and therefore, in my opinion he had culpability, and perhaps should have been charged with manslaughter.
But in the past there was slavery and the Fugitive Slave Acts, there was violence and lynchings of black people, and there were Jim Crow laws, all these things enforced or at least condoned by the government. But none of that exists anymore.
However, many black Americans who are promising entrepreneurs are shut out by the many economic regulations and restrictions imposed on them by the ignoramuses of government bureaucracy. Why don’t the activists ever complain about these things?
Anyway, it is not easy to take people seriously when they are concerned about one-way racism but not the other way.
What about the more recent flash mob attacks by black youths against white people, such as at the Wisconsin State Fair in 2011? These incidents are happening more frequently and in other cities such as New York and Chicago – and this is since Obama has been president. But we don’t hear anything from people who claim to be concerned about racially-motivated “hate crimes” in these cases.
So the race-mongers continue to be obsessed with one-way racism, and now are running to the Mommy and Daddy feds. Yeah, AG Eric Holster is so concerned about racial issues in America that he and his DOJ refuse to prosecute black defendants accused of crimes against white victims, as we saw in the Philadelphia voter intimidation case.
Sadly, we have not gotten very far since the 1960s regarding race relations in America.
I see why Malisha exited:
Non-racial perspective:
A teenager-heading home-was followed, and eventually killed by his follower. The follower is found ‘not guilty by the law’, because ‘the follower’ was ‘defending himself from the person whom he was following’. Remember the follower (Zimmerman) is not a police officer, undercover agent, etc., and he violated every rule that he was taught while at the Neighborhood Watch Officer training course/class.
Racial perspective (substitute person being followed as Trayvon Martin; follower as George Zimmerman):
According to the Washington Post, majority of blacks disagree with the verdict, and want the DOJ to go after Zimmerman. However, a majority of whites agree with the verdict, and do not want the DOJ to go after Zimmerman.
Hypocritical Perspective (and eventually this has become ‘American ‘Way’):
I don’t want my son, daughter, spouse, significant other, or relatives followed. If they are followed, and eventually murdered by their follower, then the follower should receive the death sentence (or I will help send him to his maker: From dust he/she was formed, and from dust he/she will be returned by me).
On the other hand, if the person-being followed-is not my son, daughter, spouse, significant other, and/or relative, and he/she is eventually murdered by the follower, then, we must use the courts to determine if the follower was acting in self-defense, since the person-being followed-became ‘surprisingly aggressive’ once he/she knew that he/she was being followed.
I’m with the Washington office. The law isn’t justice. Flailing around for a flag of convenience, be it different laws or jurisdictions, with which to compel the verdict desired by the government is just unAmerican.
I find it rather hypocritical for the ACLU to demand that an administration with a terrible record with regard to civil liberties instigate a criminal charge against a defendant acquitted on a state case that was widely believed to have been overcharged complete with genuine accusations of prosecutorial misconduct and having nearly nil for probable cause or even compelling evidence of a federal crime against this defendant for reasons that are more evident of submitting to a public demand for imprisonment for any reason under any circumstances however extra-judicial they may be.
The ACLU is one of the last organizations I would expect to be demanding an individual be prosecuted by government for any reason.
The NAACP got 1.5 million signatures in 3 days on their petition to DOJ and expect the number increase to 3 as word of mouth continues the traffic flow to their website.
This isn’t going away.
Profiling?
http://www.humanevents.com/2013/07/19/black-americas-real-problem-isnt-white-racism/
When Holder delivered his 2009 “nation-of-cowards” speech blaming racism for racial separation, Manhattan Institute’s Heather Mac Donald suggested that our attorney general study his crime statistics.
In New York from January to June 2008, 83 percent of all gun assailants were black, according to witnesses and victims, though blacks were only 24 percent of the population. Blacks and Hispanics together accounted for 98 percent of all gun assailants. Forty-nine of every 50 muggings and murders in the Big Apple were the work of black or Hispanic criminals.
New York Police Commissioner Ray Kelly confirms Mac Donald’s facts.
Blacks and Hispanics commit 96 percent of all crimes in the city, he says, but only 85 percent of the stop-and-frisks are of blacks and Hispanics.
It is fascinating what that verdict has produced. Lord, dare I say it? Could the ACLU be manipulating … saying yes, then no … you know, bowing to pressure then bearing up under pressure … or am I being too cynical?
Hypocrisy from the ACLU.
I tire of people putting aside their supposed principles to engage in emotion based absurdities. That is a sign of mental weakness.
My problem with the ACLU is its lack of democratic functioning. There is no debate within the organization for its various positions, and they expell chapters that go against national policy.
While I don’t find a double jeopardy issue here – different charges are different charges even if I think the hate crimes portion is misguided and wrong – I don’t think a civil rights case against Zimmerman is winnable. It would serve to do nothing but damage the DOJ and Obama Administration politically at this point. The evidentiary standards are just too high and if that evidence existed, the Florida grand jury would have returned a capital murder charge in the first place.
Pursuing civil rights charges against the locals though for their bungling the case is another matter altogether.
God’s light no man has seen and lived is what gives Justice. Don’t see that do what comes easy for people that die to do and that is war.