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
ACLU: James Madison warned us of the dangers of the “tyranny of the majority” which is also usually the will of most voters – citizens that are so unpopular that Congress and/or the President are derelict in protecting their constitutional rights (which is their oath of office). In those circumstances, those unpopular citizens are only protected by the U.S. Constitution/Bill of Rights – usually enforced by federal judges (Judicial Branch) and represented by ACLU lawyers.
Today those unpopular citizens are Muslim-Americans, African-Americans, environmentalists, animal rights activists and even gun owners! The ACLU has defended all of them for free (at no cost to their clients).
Conservatives may want to remember this on the 2nd Amendment – if left solely to the voters (or the “tyranny of the majority”) many states would ban 100% of all guns tomorrow. That is why gun owners cite the 2nd Amendment and why the ACLU represents them also.
Gene H
At what point while your head is being pounded on the concrete, would you conclude you had just cause to use lethal force? Who’s to say that the very next blow would not have caused serious injury or death?
Bob Kauten 1, July 23, 2013 at 1:59 pm
Hubert,
I carry an ACLU membership card in my wallet, just to drive people like you crazy. It obviously works.
============================
Ditto.
The ACLU is The People’s American Goverment in exile.
Cray,
I’ve stated elsewhere on this blog about my reasons for thinking the prosecution did a poor job. I don’t feel like repeating myself. If you want to beat your chest about how well the SPD and the prosecutor’s handled this case? Go ahead. It’s an effective denial of due process to overcharge and mishandle a case and it might be based on the race of the victim. Again, you seem to think I have more invested in this than I do.
I’m willing to let an investigation sort out any prosecutorial misconduct.
Zimmerman’s rights were violated? Martin’s rights were violated? No fault? I don’t care about which way the outcome falls either way.
However, that’s not going to change my opinion that the manslaughter case was theirs to lose and lose it the prosecution did.
Hubert Cumberdale:
“WHAT? The ACLU has relentlessly stood for the destruction of America. They always come down on the wrong side of the argument for just about everything they’ve touched.”
*****************
Right you are, Hubert, the Republican will always file suit to protect the little guys rights, won’t they? And surely if anyone comes down continually on the wrong side of the argument in your mind they should be as, you so colorfully put it, treated like a “cancer.”
Why anyone would disparage people who stand up for other people’s rights and even the rights of their detractors is beyond me, intellectually speaking. Self-loathing, I suppose.
Bob Kauten,
I second your motion! I too am a proud member of the ACLU. An organization whose only job is to protect the Constitution. Shouldn’t everyone be in favor of that?
Hard cases make bad law — and hard application of principles, it seems. We don’t talk enough about the court of public opinion in this country but we should. Many, many folks want this guy punished. When that sentiment exists and there is a perception that the defendant “got away with one,” my experience is that based on that alone he will be. Ask Ryan Braun.
Mespo,
Ryan Braun & MLB is an example of how disgraceful the sport has become. You were caught ‘cheating’ and you only have to pay $3.5 million out your $122 million contract. What a joke!
Hubert,
I carry an ACLU membership card in my wallet, just to drive people like you crazy. It obviously works.
” I remain a huge admirer of the ACLU and its inspiring legacy in fighting for civil liberties in America.”
WHAT? The ACLU has relentlessly stood for the destruction of America. They always come down on the wrong side of the argument for just about everything they’ve touched. We’d be a lot better off if the ACLU just didn’t exist. But they’re ingrained in the justice system, like a cancer.
“They may have also denied Trayvon’s rights to due process by prosecutorial incompetence.”
I enjoy novel legal theories. Please explain how Trayvon’s due process rights may have been denied by prosecutorial incompetence.
They may have also denied Trayvon’s rights to due process by prosecutorial incompetence.
I’m perfectly willing to let an investigation sort that out.
“Then that still makes the prosecutor’s office an appropriate target for a DOJ investigation of civil rights violations based on deprivation of due process.”
I agree. They may have violated Zimmerman’s right to due process.
Then that still makes the prosecutor’s office an appropriate target for a DOJ investigation of civil rights violations based on deprivation of due process.
Gene H.
Det. Serino doesn’t have the luxury of filing charges. He can only submit his findings to the prosecutor. It is the prosecutor who makes the decision of whether or not to file charges.
That was to your motive, not your person.
Compare:
“I am kind of curious though if the SPD and/or the prosecutor’s office has hired you to run as a PR flack on their behalf or if you’re doing it gratis.” – To your position(s).
To:
“I’m kind of curious as to why you’re a jackass.” – To your person.
Still the point remains:
There is a difference between “Serino did not believe he had enough evidence at the time to file charges” and “Serino was instructed at the time not to file charges”.
Gene H.
“I am kind of curious though if the SPD and/or the prosecutor’s office has hired you to run as a PR flack on their behalf or if you’re doing it gratis.”
Wow! It doesn’t take you long to resort to personal attacks. Does it?
I’ll also point out there is a difference between “Serino did not believe he had enough evidence at the time to file charges” and “Serino was instructed at the time not to file charges”.
I am kind of curious though if the SPD and/or the prosecutor’s office has hired you to run as a PR flack on their behalf or if you’re doing it gratis.
Do the words post hoc mean anything to you?
Apparently not.
Gene H.
“[M]ultiple sources told ABC News” is not “a point”. It’s a story, and that story lacks any evidentiary foundation. Where is this claimed affidavit? Was it submitted at trial?
The FDLE report, based on a March 3, 2012 interview with Det. Serino, states “Serino did not believe he had enough evidence at the time to file charges.”
http://www.scribd.com/doc/151186793/Detective-Chris-Serino-FBI-report
(see the last paragraph)
So, Z was given a walk because “Serino did not believe he had enough evidence at the time to file charges”. Kinda belies your assertion that the SPD had reason to believe charges were merited.
Hmmmmmm.
.