This is the column that I really do not want to write, but sometimes in this business, you have to do things you don’t want to do. You see, 11 years ago today, I made the best decision of my life – I married the love of my life, Cecilia. Little did I realize what the bonds of marriage would bring in the next 11 years.
Last night, I took my family to our favorite restaurant in Mendocino, Ravens’, out of cellular range. When we got back into cellular range, I got a bevy of alerts on the acquittal of George Zimmerman. I spent an hour or so reading my Facebook and Twitter feeds – anger and outrage. Some people were resigned, some were ready to take up action.
I figure today is a day I get a not-so-rare opportunity to anger every single reader’s sensibilities. The problem is that, while I am not a lawyer, after monitoring cases for three and a half years, I have started to think like a lawyer.
While I understand the outrage of my friends in this case, I do not share it with them about the verdict. Nevertheless, those of you who believe this is the right verdict need to understand something – there is no joy here in this case.
A young man named Trayvon Martin, who was just starting out in life, is dead. He didn’t need to die. That is both tragic and sad. George Zimmerman’s life will never be the same. He has been tried and convicted by huge swaths of the public. That is both tragic and sad.
Nothing in this verdict takes away from that tragedy and a guilty verdict would not bring Trayvon back, and despite what everyone would think, it would not bring closure to the Martin family other than for a brief moment.
The defense attorneys, whose opinions I have read and trust, never believed that Mr. Zimmerman would be found guilty of second degree murder. I agreed. I didn’t see this as a murder case. For all of the mistakes that Mr. Zimmerman made – and he made a ton that night – I never saw the true intent to kill with malice that would be required for a murder conviction.
I believed there was a good possibility that it would end up a compromise with a manslaughter conviction.
“The question comes down to who started the fight and whether Zimmerman was acting in self-defense,” George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley writes. “Various witnesses said that Martin was on top of Zimmerman and said that they believed that Zimmerman was the man calling for help. Zimmerman had injuries. Not serious injuries but injuries to his head from the struggle. Does that mean that he was clearly the victim? No. It does create added doubt on the question of the use of lethal force.”
Do juries make mistakes? All of the time, but in this case, I think the jury probably knows this case better than the pundits. Frankly, as I wrote yesterday, some should be ashamed of the things they said on the air, where others could hear them.
In a way, yesterday was a great day in America. Let me explain before you throw me down the stairs. The media and much of the public had tried, convicted and executed Mr. Zimmerman without trial and before the facts were known.
But the system of justice prevailed and a jury was able to look at the facts and determine that there was insufficient evidence to convict Mr. Zimmerman of a crime. And that’s what I think this verdict is – it is not an exoneration of him, but the facts could not support conviction and in this nation you are innocent until you are proven guilty.
That said, this will anger the other side of the aisle. There is no doubt – none – zero – zilch – that if the roles were reversed here, the verdict would have been different. Had Trayvon Martin killed George Zimmerman under the exact same conditions, he would have been convicted. No doubt in my mind.
I absolutely believe that race matters. That doesn’t mean I think that Mr. Zimmerman was acquitted because he was white. I think he was acquitted because the jury could not find evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to convict him. However, with the reversal of race, the burden shifts slightly and evidence that the jury viewed in one light would have swayed them just enough to convict.
It is unprovable, of course, but the impact of race in this nation is no longer 100-0. Now it’s more like about 20%, just enough to change the outcome of a close case. It is a perverted sort of progress, but progress nonetheless.
Of course, no case is complete in this country without the inevitable fumble by prosecutors. So we get the story that the employee at the Florida State Attorney’s Office who testified that prosecutors withheld evidence from the defense – a Brady violation – has been fired.
So the prosecutor’s office commits an alleged Brady violation and then fires the whistleblower. How nice.
CNN reports, “In a six-page dismissal letter, the State Attorney’s Office, Fourth Judicial Circuit, blasted Kruidbos’ assertions and motivations. Managing Director Cheryl R. Peek accused Kruidbos of having erased data from a laptop in violation of the Public Records Law and derided his concern about being held liable as ‘feigned and spurious’ and ‘nothing more than shameful manipulation in a shallow, but obvious, attempt to cloak yourself in the protection of the whistleblower law.’ “
She concluded, “Because of your deliberate, willful and unscrupulous actions, you can never again be trusted to step foot in this office. Your have left us with no choice but to terminate your employment.”
I have seen a number of my conservative friends post on this outrage – all I can say is welcome to the club and understand that this is unfortunately all too standard a practice.
Legal reaction from Florida seems to believe that the verdict was the correct one. It is difficult to judge from across the country, in part because Florida law is vastly different with regard to self-defense.
So I found these opinions helpful, as printed in the Miami Herald.
“Justifiable use of force is one of the most difficult areas of the law,” Florida State Attorney Angela Corey acknowledged Saturday after Zimmerman’s acquittal. “Make no mistake, Trayvon Martin had every right to be on the premises as did George Zimmerman … that’s what makes this case unique.”
Jude M. Faccidomo, the former president of Miami’s Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, said the jury clearly believed in the right to self-defense: “Especially when cases are so gray, like this one was, self-defense really resonates because people can associate with being afraid.”
“After seeing the quality of the evidence presented by the state, the diversity of the jury really didn’t matter in the end,” said Larry Handfield, a prominent African-American Miami criminal defense lawyer. “But it would have helped the community in giving more credibility to the decision to acquit Zimmerman.”
Another interesting point comes from a Miami defense attorney who said that the closing arguments offered a role reversal for prosecutors and the defense.
“The initial summation by the prosecution was what you see many times from defense lawyers – passionate and trying to poke holes or raise doubts in Zimmerman’s version of events,” he said. “On the other hand, the defense accepted the burden of proof and methodically and dispassionately went through the evidence and the elements, much like a prosecutor would normally proceed.”
The acquittal vindicated O’Mara’s strategy. He not only maintained that the state hadn’t proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt, but riskily admitted he wanted to take on the “burden” of proving his client’s “absolute innocence.” He even wished, half-playfully, that the verdict form has a check box for “completely innocent.”
The report notes, “Under the law, the defense has no burden to prove anything. Only prosecutors must prove a case, beyond a reasonable doubt.”
“I really like the strategy,” Markus said. “Many times, cases come down to whether you can show the jury that you really believe in your client. What better way to do that than to tell the jury that you aren’t relying on burdens of proof but instead that you believe he is innocent?”
Whether you are angry at the verdict or you believe this is justice, remember one thing at the end of the day – a young man is dead and he didn’t have to be. George Zimmerman may have walked out of court a free man but his life will never be the same.
There is no justice in this case. Cases like these make me wonder if there isn’t a better approach. It would be interesting to see how a victim-offender mediation would work out. Not now when emotions are raw, but some day. Maybe both sides can get a little bit back from what they have lost.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
[quote]That doesn’t mean I think that Mr. Zimmerman was acquitted because he was white. [/quote]
He was half Hispanic.
[quote]There is no doubt – none – zero – zilch – that if the roles were reversed here, the verdict would have been different. [/quote]
You don’t know that.
“You don’t know that. “
Of course I do. Just like I knew exactly which parts of this column you would respond to.
[quote]There is no doubt – none – zero – zilch – that if the roles were reversed here, the verdict would have been different. [/quote]
That should read ….in your opinion if the roles were reversed here, the verdict would have been different.
[quote]Just like I knew exactly which parts of this column you would respond to. [/quote]
LOL, just as I knew you would try and turn the case into a racial thing and overlook the fact that Zimmerman was half Hispanic.
Technically it should read: “There is no doubt in my opinion…” but this is a commentary, that’s already implied.
” I knew you would try and turn the case into a racial thing and overlook the fact that Zimmerman was half Hispanic. “
I didn’t turn it into a racial thing, I made a very specific comment that had the roles been reversed, the outcome would have been different, noting it was a close call and that it would shift the calculus slightly. That’s hardly making it a racial thing.
BTW, of the 1400 words in this essay, only 225, four paragraphs were about the racial “thing”
I do not see this as a racial issue at all. My biggest concern would be that it may be interpreted by many as a vindication of a law that essentially places “justice” in the hands of the survivor of a homicide. Unless there were witnesses having seen the entire event from start to finish, how can one judge who was the initial agressor ?
What if what really occurred was that having been intimidated by Mr. Zimmerman, Mr. Martin was merely
“standing his ground” as apparently he has the right to do under the law. Would it not be reasonable to think that this would result in a few minor injuries to Mr. Zimmerman ? Unfortunately, we will never hear Mr. Martin’s version of events. I think that “justice” would be most served by re examining this law which essentially, by default, gives “victory” to the survivor regardless of intent or initial provocation.
DG writes: [quote][b][u]The problem is that, while I am not a lawyer, after monitoring cases for three and a half years, I have started to think like a lawyer.[/u][/b][/quote]
Yes, your thinking such a thing is a BIG PROBLEM!
[quote]”‘After seeing the quality of the evidence presented by the state, the diversity of the jury really didn’t matter in the end’, said Larry Handfield, a prominent African American Miami criminal defense lawyer.”[/quote]I didn’t watch too much, but I think the prosecution got “out-lawyered.”
I didn’t have much hope for a conviction after watching the original lead investigator sabatoge everything during questioning by both the prosecution and defense.
Then, it took overnight for the state to decide to (successfully) object to his “conclusion” that Zimmerman’s story was the truth. Poor witness prep or passive aggressive undermining by the local investigator?[quote]”There is no doubt – none – zero – zilch – that if the roles were reversed here, the verdict would have been different….only 225 (words), four paragraphs, were about the racial ‘thing'”[/quote]When the strongest contention of the writeup ties the verdict 100 per cent to race, it’s hard to argue that the number of other words mean very much (including a general “close case” followup about all cases).
I think this was really complicated and that the defense attorneys made the most of that. A conservative enclave in a conservative state, one which has a “stand your ground” defense to killing someone else–what a great start for a guy who is supported by the lone witness who claims to have gotten a good look at the action.
Combine this with “outside” investigators and prosecutors invading the community to reverse the locals who already had determined this was a righteous shooting, a prosecution team that didn’t seem to have a good handle on significant elements of the case or on a comprehensible prosecution strategy and the unknown effect on the jury of having the whole country watching.
Who really knows what tipped the “reasonable doubt” scale? And, who really can say that there’s “no doubt – none – zero – zilch” that there would have been a guilty finding if an African American would have shot a Hispanic under the same circumstances?
It didn’t take long to convince me that Zimmerman was a liar, a convincing one, but still. That would have carried over to his supposed account of last seconds of the shooting–except for the “who was on top” and “who beat who” questions and the only witness (who supported so much of the defense account).
I, too, was expecting a manslaughter conviction. After all, we convict parents who leave out loaded guns for their kids shoot each other. Or, drivers who recklessly kill others on the highway.
How can an armed adult (told to back off while following a minor) get away with killing him instead?
It’s that darned ol’ “reasonable doubt” at work, and it probably would have worked in this case even even if Martin had been the shooter and Zimmerman had ended up as a dead kid.
PS–Congratulations on your anniversary.
A lawyer-like statement? DG penned:
[quote]I believed there was a good possibility that it would end up a compromise with a manslaughter conviction.[/quote]
Compromise???? You can’t be serious, really?
At any rate, you were incorrect about another legal matter!
[b]Justice prevails, again![/b]
DG wrote:
[quote]However, with the reversal of race, [u][b]the burden shifts[/b][/u] slightly and evidence that the jury viewed in one light would have swayed them just enough to convict.[/quote]
WHAT!?
Prove up, please!
[quote]What if what really occurred was that having been intimidated by Mr. Zimmerman, Mr. Martin was merely
“standing his ground” as apparently he has the right to do under the law. [/quote]
You are confused about the concept of “reasonable doubt”. It is the prosecution, not the defense, that has to prove its case.
mw, this case was not about “Stand your ground,” it is pure self defense!
[i]”BTW, of the 1400 words in this essay, only 225, four paragraphs were about the racial “thing”[/i]
225 words of wrong can can cause people to ignore the 1400 words of validity. In fact, just four word would cause some people to lose their minds and go off.
A back story to this case is the media’s contribution to continued racial conflict. A larger and stronger teenage kid attacks an older guy that is patrolling his neighborhood to help prevent rampant property crimes, and the older guy shoots the teenager in self defense. There are so many things about that story that should be written about and discussed, but the media makes it a racial circus. George Zimmer is Hispanic, but white. Trayvon Martin is of course a young black man. So what? Why is race even injected into this story? If fact it had become the BIGGEST part of the story.
The Vanguard, because it is part of the media, shares responsibility for establishing and perpetuating our social and cultural dialog on the myriad of topics it choses to write about. It has a leadership position in this respect. When race is the topic, or even a piece of the topic, then race is injected into the minds of readers as being something worthy of consideration.
When will we ever move to a point in our civil rights march where race is not worthy of consideration and we become a society that truly does judge a man by the color of his character and the shades of his skin? Blame those in the media for slowing, and maybe preventing, that from every occurring.
[quote]”My biggest concern would be that it may be interpreted by many as a vindication of a law that essentially places ‘justice’ in the hands of the survivor of a homicide.”[/quote]Excellent point, medwoman. Even when there’s no “stand your ground” law, there’s the basic self-defense defense.
What would discourage anyone from lying when facing a murder or manslaughter shooting investigation or trial? A potential perjury charge?
The survivor gets to come up with any cover story that might get him off. And, there’s no one to speak for the dead guy, except to speculate. Fortunately, sometimes there’s forensics that can tell the story in some cases.
Angela Corey, Florida’s state attorney and the prosecutor against Zimmerman, has been indicted by a citizens’ grand jury for allegedly falsifying an arrest warrant and the complaint that led to Zimmerman being charged with the second-degree murder of Trayvon Martin.
[url]http://beforeitsnews.com/politics/2013/07/florida-prosecutor-indicted-for-falsifying-arrest-warrant-against-george-zimmerman-2-2532594.html[/url]
Remmer: You think jurors don’t compromise in the jury room?
This whole case is why I don’t think men should be allowed to carry guns. Women? Sure. Loaded, concealed, I don’t care. Anywhere they want. But men? No. They can’t be trusted with them.
Having been on two jury trials, I can assure you that juries compromise. When they asked for further instructions about manslaughter, that’s where I thought they were going. I think they wanted to convict him of [i]something[/i], but not what he was charged with.
I don’t second-guess jury results, because they have different information than the public, and there is an internal dynamic that develops in the jury room. Juries do have a lot of latitude, and they aren’t lawyers. Once they begin deliberations, there are many subjective factors that come in to play.
JR
[quote]You are confused about the concept of “reasonable doubt”. It is the prosecution, not the defense, that has to prove its case.[/quote]
No confusion at all. I said absolutely nothing about the outcome of this particular trial and whether or not there was reasonable doubt. My comment was about what I perceive as the lack of justice embodied by the “stand your ground” law which, minus unbiased eyewitnesses, will have the survivor innocent by their own word.
I leave each reader to decide how many survivors would admit that they had been the initial aggressor.
This reminds me of nothing so much as the concept of trial by champion as in “Game of Thrones” where one on one combat to the death is used to condemn or exonerate a third party. The theory is that the “gods” will favor the champion of the innocent and will throw down the champion of the guilty. Sounds just…..right ?
AdRemmer
[quote]mw, this case was not about “Stand your ground,” it is pure self defense![/quote]
Unless, of course, you were Trevon Martin, and no longer alive to tell your version of the story in which you were exercising your right to self defense after being stalked and threatened while doing nothing more than walking through a public space.
“This whole case is why I don’t think men should be allowed to carry guns. Women? Sure. Loaded, concealed, I don’t care. Anywhere they want.”
Of all the arguments for and against carrying concealed weapons, this is the first time I’ve seen it broken down by gender. What an intriguing concept. It could open up a whole new line of ice-breaker discussion in singles bars. Instead of “What’s your sign?” it becomes, “What are you carrying?” If she were to say, “.44 Magnum,” I might just move on to another prospect.
[quote]When will we ever move to a point in our civil rights march where race is not worthy of consideration and we become a society that truly does judge a man by the color of his character and the shades of his skin? [/quote]
When we actually start judging people by their character and not the color of their skin or the way they speak…