**Official** Trayvon Martin thread

[Lucille]

Will Justice Be Served in Zimmerman’s Trial?

It is hard to imagine how George Zimmerman could get a fair trial. Where do you find a juror who has not heard of this case, and would you really want someone like that on a jury anyway?

For weeks, most of Trayvon Martin’s champions have called for the arrest and trial of Zimmerman. Although I sympathized with some of their grievances, I did not add my voice to that chorus. Indeed, while some folks were neutral on the whole matter, and said that a trial would finally determine guilt, I was not so optimistic about that point either.
[...]
In any event, I still don’t think anyone truly knows what happened between Zimmerman and Martin. Moreover, I have my doubts that the calls for arresting and trying Zimmerman, now that they have been heard and answered, will solve anything. Instead of a deep reflection on the racial politics of policing and its possible double standards, which I think is a perfectly legitimate exercise, the upshot is now the precedent that the police will be even more likely to arrest people. They will be terrified not to arrest someone in the killing of a black person, even when there might be some doubt as to the malicious nature of the act or who did it, meaning far more arrests, probably mostly of minorities. One more Latino behind bars who cannot possibly get a fair hearing—and this is supposed to be a victory against institutional bigotry?

I was sympathetic to those outraged at the police handling of the Martin killing, but what I found most frustrating was this idea that the police and prosecutors are insufficiently vigilant. The attempt to repeal Stand Your Ground is just another attempt to empower the police state, which is not nearly as reluctant to arrest and jail people as many well-meaning Americans concerned about racist police practices think.

To make our neighborhoods safer and Americans less suspicious of one another, the government has plenty of options, almost all of them involving pulling back from the virtual warzone it has created with its drug and victim disarmament laws, stopping its erosion of public morality though the school system and welfare state, ending the massive wealth destruction it unleashes upon the poor through regulations and labor restrictions, and refraining from being such a terrible bad example morally in its foreign and domestic policies.

What is the solution for the tragedy at hand? That’s a tough question with no perfect answers, but a highly charged trial is likely to fail as well as any other remedy. It is just as likely that a guilty Zimmerman will be let go or a largely innocent Martin will be disproportionately punished as it is for justice of any kind to win out.

 

[cajuncocoa]

I agree with both of you in that its not a clear cut thing. What would some of these examples be?

This, for one:

Yeah, it's kind of like the ridiculous argument that if a woman wears revealing clothing she shouldn't complain when she is raped.

 

[jmdrake]

He may not have felt physically threatened, but he obviously felt Trayvon was a threat. Now that you admit Trayvon had the right to follow him though this is all irrelevant.

Bravery is stupid, but it's still commendable.

Ummm....I never denied the fact that "Trayvon had the right to follow Zimmerman". (I'm guessing you misspoke again). I also never denied that Zimmerman had the right to follow Trayvon. Of course if he had followed Trayvon from the comfort and safety of his car then he wouldn't have ended up shooting Trayvon and this whole sordid mess wouldn't have happened. And stupidity is never commendable. And bravery isn't stupid. Stupidity is taking needless risks for no good reason. Stupidity is going to war with Iraq. Bravery was the partisans resisting the Nazis when they really had no other choice. Zimmerman wasn't being brave. He was merely being stupid. His foolish actions didn't make himself or his neighborhood any safer.

 

[silverhandorder]

This is what we don't know... what happened between Zimmerman hanging up with 9/11 and the fight/shooting.

I agree but in that case I go with letting a guilty men go then putting an innocent man in jail.

In my opinion this would not be a problem if police actually did it's job and secured the streets.

 

[Anti Federalist]

I stand by my comments at the very start of this.

1 - Long before the use of any deadly force is even considered, before you ever strap on a firearm, you had damn well better know what the exact and precise legal requirements are for justification of this.

2 - If you instigate an altercation, it very well may be that you have now become the aggressor, in spite of any innocent intent and have lost the legal justification of the use of deadly force.

3 - I maintain that it was GZ's and his dad's FoC status that helped sway cops into letting him go without charges. I'd be willing to bet, under similar circumstances, if it were any one of us, we'd still be cooling our heels in jail.

 

[RonPaulMall]

3 - I maintain that it was GZ's and his dad's FoC status that helped sway cops into letting him go without charges. I'd be willing to bet, under similar circumstances, if it were any one of us, we'd still be cooling our heels in jail.

The police called the state attorney's office before they made the decision to arrest or not. That's what saved Zimmerman. The SA knew the law, and told them not to charge. It was a competent police department that saved Zimmerman, not any "pull" from a father that lived halfway up the east cost. A lot of times when in doubt, police will just charge. That's lazy and unethical, but it happens all the time. This department is obviously better run than many PD's. They had the wisdom to know what they didn't know, and asked for advice before doing something stupid.

 

[Anti Federalist]

The police called the state attorney's office before they made the decision to arrest or not. That's what saved Zimmerman. The SA knew the law, and told them not to charge. It was a competent police department that saved Zimmerman, not any "pull" from a father that lived halfway up the east cost. A lot of times when in doubt, police will just charge. That's lazy and unethical, but it happens all the time. This department is obviously better run than many PD's. They had the wisdom to know what they didn't know, and asked for advice before doing something stupid.

Yes, yes it does.

Which makes my point, I think.

I don't know at all that you or I would be afforded the same professionalism.

 

[Thaddeus Kosciuszko]

The Exploiters Of Tragedy Lead The Way To Insanity

Not a single one of TV’s personalities is connected to a degree, to have acquired the requisite facts, to determine that Mr. Zimmerman is guilty.

Likewise, since they were not on-site, they cannot rationally state that it was not the innocence of self-defense, that eerie night.

That’s all right—TV has it all figured out—tune the channel that you’re all about, and you will be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt.

Jackson, Sharpton and all the rest, are just like Hannity at his best—these odious exploiters of tragedy are an impediment to the evolution of humanity—indeed, it is insanity to deal with these pitiful peddlers of inanity.

But TV has set the trend—now the Department of Justice is all in.

The U.S. Justice Department's civil rights division is conducting its own civil rights investigation.

Translation: Justice is exploring the potentialities for creating a meaningful political affair out of the meaningless minutia of little more than thin air. For it is abundantly clear, this is a matter in the realm of Florida’s care.

Regrettably, the one-eyed-wonder of justice has yet to make the acquaintance of the Blind Lady

T Kosciuszko

 

[misterx]

Ummm....I never denied the fact that "Trayvon had the right to follow Zimmerman". (I'm guessing you misspoke again). I also never denied that Zimmerman had the right to follow Trayvon. Of course if he had followed Trayvon from the comfort and safety of his car then he wouldn't have ended up shooting Trayvon and this whole sordid mess wouldn't have happened. And stupidity is never commendable. And bravery isn't stupid. Stupidity is taking needless risks for no good reason. Stupidity is going to war with Iraq. Bravery was the partisans resisting the Nazis when they really had no other choice. Zimmerman wasn't being brave. He was merely being stupid. His foolish actions didn't make himself or his neighborhood any safer.

It's kind of hard to drive your car where there's no road.

Bravery was storming the beach at Normandy. It was also stupid because the people who did it knew that they would most likely die. The smart thing to do would have been to face a court martial and at least keep their lives, or get a deferment and not have to fight in the first place. Yes, bravery is stupid.

You don't know that. For all we know Trayvon was casing homes, and would have hurt someone that night. He had obviously burglarized homes before as evidenced by the jewelry found in his backpack.

I'm done with this thread though because it's not about the issue of self defense, it's all about race. Black people and anti racist whites will go to all lengths to criticize everything Zimmerman did and to defend Trayvon no matter what just because Trayvon is black. Everyone else will see it as it is, a tragic accident. If Trayvon was white many of your opinions would probably be very different just like the majority of people that are angry about this case.

 

[pcosmar]

[/B]

It's kind of hard to drive your car where there's no road.

Bravery was storming the beach at Normandy. It was also stupid because the people who did it knew that they would most likely die. The smart thing to do would have been to face a court martial and at least keep their lives, or get a deferment and not have to fight in the first place. Yes, bravery is stupid.

You don't know that. For all we know Trayvon was casing homes, and would have hurt someone that night. He had obviously burglarized homes before as evidenced by the jewelry found in his backpack.

I'm done with this thread though because it's not about the issue of self defense, it's all about race. Black people and anti racist whites will go to all lengths to criticize everything Zimmerman did and to defend Trayvon no matter what just because Trayvon is black. Everyone else will see it as it is, a tragic accident. If Trayvon was white many of your opinions would probably be very different just like the majority of people that are angry about this case.

I learned to drive off the roads. I drove around a farm, through fields for a couple years before I took "Drivers Ed".

"He had obviously burglarized homes before as evidenced by the jewelry found in his backpack."

WTF?
As I understand,, the kid had no record.
Though,," Black people and anti racist whites " this does suggest a bit of bias.

 

[jmdrake]

[/B]
It's kind of hard to drive your car where there's no road.

Hard, but not impossible. He did a pretty decent job following via car prior to getting out. And he had not need to get out. He was told they didn't need him to get out. Oh sure, he's got a right to play "neighborhood Rambo" but that doesn't make it "right" or smart. He called himself an neighborhood watch "captain"? Well where were the men he was "captain" over? If he couldn't wait for the cops then why didn't he call them up to come help him so that it wouldn't be a one on one confrontation? Piss poor leadership from the "neighborhood watch captain".

Bravery was storming the beach at Normandy. It was also stupid because the people who did it knew that they would most likely die.

for comparing this to Normandy. There were people already dying in France. We were already at war. This was not a case were anyone's life was in danger and frankly comparing George Zimmerman's actions to Normandy is disrespectful to the men who fought and died there. Zimmerman's actions aren't even as "honorable" as the Iraq war.

The smart thing to do would have been to face a court martial and at least keep their lives, or get a deferment and not have to fight in the first place. Yes, bravery is stupid.

Zimmerman was under no orders to get out of his car. Court martial? Are you kidding me? Zimmerman's actions would be more akin to some "soldier of fortune" nutcase invading Cuba after being told by the state department "We don't need you to do that".

You don't know that. For all we know Trayvon was casing homes, and would have hurt someone that night. He had obviously burglarized homes before as evidenced by the jewelry found in his backpack.

Right. You're against trying George Zimmerman in the media, but you've tried and convicted Trayvon Martin based on media reports. There's a word for that. It's called hypocrisy. For one you have know idea where Trayvon got the jewelry from. For another it's irrelevant because Zimmerman had no knowledge of Trayvon's past at the time at all. And if you want to look at people's pasts, Zimmerman is a hothead who assaulted a cop. Regardless that doesn't change the fact that what Zimmerman did was not brave but stupid. If Trayvon had been packing and shot Zimmerman he could be the one right now claiming the "Stand Your Ground" defense. You have no evidence that he was doing anything illegal that night. None whatsoever. Had Trayvon shot Zimmerman and had there been the same lack of witnesses of the entire incident as there are now TM would have the same defense. And if GZ's gun had gone off and shot an innocent bystander what then? You are too lacking in your own confidence in your own argument to address that.

I'm done with this thread though because it's not about the issue of self defense, it's all about race. Black people and anti racist whites will go to all lengths to criticize everything Zimmerman did and to defend Trayvon no matter what just because Trayvon is black. Everyone else will see it as it is, a tragic accident. If Trayvon was white many of your opinions would probably be very different just like the majority of people that are angry about this case.

You're simply being irrational. For one thing Zimmerman was not white. He is black. For another I was just as angry at the white Sunday School teacher that was unarmed and shot and killed by a cop for no justifiable reason. I don't think you're being racist, but I do think you're being stupid. I wouldn't want someone like George Zimmerman patrolling my neighborhood and possibly putting my kids in danger from stray bullets because he didn't follow proper procedures. And if you think he was justified I wouldn't want you patrolling my neighborhood either.

 

[jmdrake]

I learned to drive off the roads. I drove around a farm, through fields for a couple years before I took "Drivers Ed".



WTF?
As I understand,, the kid had no record.
Though,," Black people and anti racist whites " this does suggest a bit of bias.

Thanks for pointing that out. I missed that. I thought libertarians in general were "anti racist".

 

[CaptUSA]

176 pages of this thread... Wow.

The power of the media is awesome.

I'm not trying to dismiss the implications of this case, or minimize the loss of this young man, but the media has truly succeeded in using another event to divide individuals into sides in order to get them to ignore the big picture. That it even happens on RPF is a testament to their power.

Their playbook seems to go like this:
1. Things are getting too serious, the public is starting to question authority.
2. Find an event. (any event, it doesn't really matter)
3. Set up reaonable and plausible arguments on both sides.
4. Spend as much time as possible debating this issue. Arguing why team A is right and team B is wrong.
5. Get the public wrapped up in the controversy we've created.
6. Slowly drip new information to keep the story going as long as possible.
7. Find any emotional triggers you can and pull each one.
8. When the distraction dies down, find a new event and repeat.

Wow, 6 more pages since I posted this yesterday.

Tiger Woods
Casey Anthony
The Beer Summit
Gabrielle Giffords
Jerry Sandusky

And just in this primary season we've had:
Mitt Romney's Gardener
Moon bases
Birth Control
Etch-A-Sketch
The "War on Women"

I'm sure there's plenty more you can think of.

Again, I'm not disregarding the implications or importance of any of these stories, but let's get real here. This is evidence of the media taking any isolated incident or event and turning into some huge national crisis. They do this for ratings, but also to distract the American public from the more serious issues we are facing. Remember, that every hour MSNBCFOXCNN spends on these issues is time they are not spending on the global economic crisis, the on-going wars, or the loss of civil liberties.

They divide you into factions then get you arguing about silly little things instead of the big picture. It's great for fundraising and ratings, but it sure does kill liberty.

 

[misterx]

Thanks for pointing that out. I missed that. I thought libertarians in general were "anti racist".

Racist= if a person is black they are no good
anti-racist= if a person is black they can do no wrong.
I think most libertarians are neither. Unfortunately a few have fallen into the Marxist trap of having diferent approaches for people of color.


Jmdrake,
I'm not covicting Trayvon, I'm just saying he could have been up to no good. People are saying he wasnt doing anything wrong that night like it's a fact. The truth is, we don't know. We do know that he was not the choir boy that the media portrays him to be.

I was not equating Gz to people who fought at Normandy, and you know it. I was just giving an example of how bravery is stupid. Anything that decreases your chance at self- preservation is stupid. Obviously there are different levels of bravery and stupidity.

It all depends on what really happened whether or not I would want Gz watching my neighborhood. If his striper is accurate then I don't blame his methods(considering the high crime in the area), I blame Trayvon's violent attitude for precipitatong the accident. Whatever story you believe I would not have reacted like either one of them personally, but if you believe GZ he was more reasonable than Trayvon.

 

[BlackTerrel]

Will Justice Be Served in Zimmerman’s Trial?

It is hard to imagine how George Zimmerman could get a fair trial. Where do you find a juror who has not heard of this case, and would you really want someone like that on a jury anyway?

He'll get a fairer trial than Trayvon did.

 

[BlackTerrel]

I stand by my comments at the very start of this.

1 - Long before the use of any deadly force is even considered, before you ever strap on a firearm, you had damn well better know what the exact and precise legal requirements are for justification of this.

2 - If you instigate an altercation, it very well may be that you have now become the aggressor, in spite of any innocent intent and have lost the legal justification of the use of deadly force.

3 - I maintain that it was GZ's and his dad's FoC status that helped sway cops into letting him go without charges. I'd be willing to bet, under similar circumstances, if it were any one of us, we'd still be cooling our heels in jail.

These make sense to me as well.

 

[kylejack]

I'm not covicting Trayvon, I'm just saying he could have been up to no good. People are saying he wasnt doing anything wrong that night like it's a fact. The truth is, we don't know. We do know that he was not the choir boy that the media portrays him to be.

Arizona Iced Tea and Skittles are not typical tools for a criminal.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Balko over at The Agitator sums up my thoughts on this current phase of this debacle, nicely.

I hate when this happens.

The same thing happened during the Rodney King affair.

First I was a pansy ass liberal, because I rightly condemned the cops that beat King down.

Then I was a right wing Nazi when I said that the cops, after being found innocent, even though I strongly disagreed with that verdict should not be railroaded into another, federal prosecution.

I'm feeling the same way now over this case.

Especially the "praying with the family" part, Balko is right on the mark there, totally inappropriate.


The Zimmerman Indictment: Reactions

Monday, April 16th, 2012

http://www.theagitator.com/2012/04/16/the-zimmerman-indictment-reactions/

The “Justice for Trayvon” crowd seems pretty enthused with State’s Attorney Angela Corey’s second degree murder indictment of George Zimmerman. The overwhelming consensus among people who study or practice criminal law, however, seems to be that Corey caved to public pressure.

Here’s Jeralyn Merritt at TalkLeft:

Incredibly, it claims without support that Zimmerman was “profiling” Martin. It misrepresents what the dispatcher said to Zimmerman, calling it an “instruction” not to follow Martin. (The dispatcher said, “We don’t need you to do that” to which Zimmerman responded “Ok.”)

It says, without providing a basis, that Zimmerman confronted Trayvon. It then says a struggle ensued, at the end of which, Trayvon was dead. It says witnesses heard arguments, a struggle and cries for help. It does not say anyone saw the actual struggle. (It doesn’t refer to the one witness, John, who told police on his 911 call he did observe the struggle and has later said Zimmerman was on the bottom crying out for help.)

The only support for its belief the voice crying for help was Trayvon’s is his mother’s identification. There’s no reference to Zimmerman’s father or brother saying they believed the voice was Zimmerman’s, or that the officer at the scene overheard Zimmerman say he cried out for help.

It makes no reference to who initiated the physical struggle. Or that Zimmerman was observed bleeding at the scene. It only says “Zimmerman confronted Martin and a struggle ensued.” . . .

The only independent investigation they mention, interviewing witnesses, is the least reliable method of investigation they could have pursued. New versions of witness statements are inherently unreliable. These statements are the product of “post-event information.” in which the witness’ current memory is a co-mingling of actual memories from the event and information learned later, from the media and others.

The likelihood of error in these later statements is even greater if they were made after they “pooled information” with other witnesses, learning what others thought they heard and saw. Memories influenced by post-event information and pooling of information are major causes of faulty eye-witness identification, which in turn is the leading cause of wrongful convictions in this country.

Affidavit = FAIL. That a judge signed off on this as establishing second degree murder which according to Florida jury instructions and case law requires the killing be done with “ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent” is perplexing, to say the least.



Merritt again, in a separate post:

Given that Trayvon and Zimmerman were strangers, if the state’s argument for finding enmity and ill-will is that Zimmerman’s hatred of criminals extended to Trayvon because he assumed Trayvon was a criminal, I don’t think it will prevail. It seems to be just a story, intended to cover the gap in the intent requirement between murder 2 and manslaughter, in a way that that avoids the topic of race. Since it neither proves Zimmerman was the aggressor nor disproves he acted in self-defense or had a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm, the state’s story may be insufficient to establish either offense.

No wonder Angela Corey wanted to bypass the grand jury. She only had 1/2 a ham sandwich and forgot the mustard.



Here’s Ken at Popehat:

It’s a piece of crap.

Explaining why could be an epic post, but I don’t have much time, so I will make it brief.

The affidavit is argumentative, it’s conclusory, and it lacks attribution.

The affidavit takes the lazy way out, starting with a paragraph that says, in effect, “we investigated a bunch of stuff, and here’s what we learned,” followed by a narrative of what the affiant believes happened. Almost nothing is specifically attributed — that is, for most facts asserted in the affidavit, it is impossible to determine whether a witness told the affiant the fact, how the witness knew, or whether it is just a conclusion drawn by the affiant.

This makes the argumentative and conclusory elements of the affivadit that much more problematical. For instance, the affidavit states that Zimmerman “profiled” Martin. But it’s impossible to determine if (1) that’s the affiant’s characterization of the narrative that follows, or (2) that’s intended as a separate factual assertion based on unspecified facts or evidence or witnesses. Similarly, the affidavit makes numerous statements about what Zimmerman thought or intended. It is impossible to determine whether these statements are (1) conclusions based on Zimmerman’s actions and statements to the 911 dispatcher, (2) admissions Zimmerman made in some unspecified statement, or (3) mere argument.

The affiant occasionally gets it right — for instance, stating that Martin’s mother identified his voice on the 911 tapes as the person calling for help. But for the most part, the affidavit offers a narrative of events, not a description of evidence supplying probable cause. Moreover, it is bizarrely vague at the most critical juncture — it blandly states “Zimmerman confronted Martin and a struggle ensued.”

This is not the worst affidavit I’ve ever seen — but it’s damn close, and the decision to proceed based on it in such a high-profile case is stunning.



Here’s Dan Markel:

I watched with surprise at the unfolding decision by state attorney Corey to file second degree murder against Zimmerman. Corey is reputed to be a prosecutor who is both tough and possessing integrity. For all I know, she and her colleagues have all sorts of evidence that hasn’t yet been leaked and that would support a murder charge beyond a reasonable doubt.

But if everything we’ve seen reported is true (and I’ll assume this provides a useful summary), and there aren’t other missing pieces of evidence, I cannot fathom how a jury would return a guilty verdict for murder. If that’s right, what could justify bringing a murder charge? Certainly, the idea of charging high with the hope of inducing a plea could explain bringing a murder charge as a matter of tactics. But it would not be a justified basis for bringing a murder charge. To my mind, it would be repugnant to bring a high charge if the prosecutor herself does not readily believe in it, and if it is not readily provable beyond a reasonable doubt. Some jurisdictions or prosecutors’ offices might say: this is complicated stuff, we have an adversary system, let the jury sort it out. That’s a cop-out. Prosecutors are not partisans or advocates; they’re agents of public justice. I have no special insight into Corey’s evidence files but I sure hope she knows more than we do. Otherwise, a murder charge seems like a terrific injustice, and one that happens so frequently that it’s become difficult to see in plain sight.



Mark Bennett, in his Blawg Review:

Last week saw the arrest of George Zimmerman for second-degree murder in the killing of Trayvon Martin. How far we’ve come since 1963: here the protesters, rather than being willing to go to jail for their principles, wanted the government to put a man in jail for their principles.

The blawgosphere has, to its credit, been generally critical of the charge . . .



Alan Dershowitz:

Most affidavits of probable cause are very thin. This is so thin that it won’t make it past a judge on a second degree murder charge. There’s simply nothing in there that would justify second degree murder. It’s not only thin, it’s irresponsible.”

I think what you have here is an elected public official who made a campaign speech last night for reelection when she gave her presentation and overcharged. This case will not – if the evidence is no stronger than what appears in the probable cause affidavit – this case will result in an acquittal.

This affidavit does not even make it to probable cause. Everything in the affidavit is completely consistent with a defense of self-defense. Everything.



“Bmaz” at Marcy Wheeler’s emptywheel blog breaks the indictment down paragraph by paragraph, and concludes:

It is completely lacking in requisite and necessary attribution for the extremely few and, really, innocuous facts it does present, and the rest comprises nothing but unsupported and wholly conclusory statements meant to infer criminal activity, but which do not even do a competent job of that.

In short, it is shit. To be honest, this affidavit, within its “four corners” arguably does not even meet the necessary burden of probable cause for Manslaughter under Florida section 782.07, much less the “depraved mind” necessary under Florida’s Second Degree Murder charge under section 782.04(2) as charged in the information. George Zimmerman may have committed a crime, but it is not demonstrated in this affidavit, and certainly is not as to the crime charged, Second Degree Murder. Charles Blow can praise this thing until the cows come home in the august pages of the New York Times, but it is still a pile of junk.

But the above discussion is all about what is in the affidavit, let’s talk about what is not in the affidavit as well. The affidavit goes out of its way to spin innocuous and perfectly legal activity into some nebulous vignette of implied criminality, yet self servingly there is not a single fleeting reference to Zimmerman’s claim of having acted in self defense. To be sure, in charging a case, a prosecutor is going to frame the facts to support her charge. But that does not mean she can blithely ignore patently exculpatory facts known to her and germane to the interests of justice. Angela Corey’s affidavit is thusly not just deficient, but dishonest in a very slimy, even if not unethical way. It is patently offensive in that regard.

The case is also patently overcharged. As stated above, I think it is more than arguable that the probable cause affidavit does not even support manslaughter, but it is not remotely close to supporting second degree murder. This is an embarrassment not only for Angela Corey, but the magistrate who signed off on this bunk. It makes the criminal justice system look horrible.



Monroe Freedman looks at the Corey press conference, and questions the prosecutor’s ethics.

Corey: “We know only one category as prosecutors, and that is a ‘V.’ It’s not a ‘B,’ it’s not a ‘W,’ it’s not an ‘H.’ It’s ‘V,’ for victim. That’s who we work tirelessly for. And that’s all we know, is justice for our victims.” Corey also referred to “our precious victims.”

ABA Std. 3-2.1, cmt.: “The idea that the criminal law … is designed to vindicate public rather than private interests is now firmly established.”
ABA Std. 3-3.2, cmt.: “the prosecutor’s client is not the victim.”

Corey: The first thing my team and I did upon being appointed was to meet with Trayvon’s family and pray with them. “We opened our meeting with prayer.” Also, Ms. Corey thanked “all those people across this country who have sent positive energy and prayers our way,” and she asked them to continue to pray for Trayvon’s family and for her team. “Remember, it is Trayvon’s family that are our constitutional victims….”

At this point, do we need the due process of a trial by jury? Can Zimmerman receive the due process of a trial by an impartial jury? Why should anyone care?



The one thing I’d add is that I was taken aback by Corey’s statement at the press conference that the first thing she did after she was appointed to the case was pray with Trayvon Martin’s family. I find the idea of a prosecutor praying with a victim’s family off-putting in general. But it’s particularly troubling in this case.

Here’s why: In this case, Corey’s job wasn’t to discover who committed what everyone acknowledges was a crime. Her job was determine if a crime was committed at all. Remember, George Zimmerman claims that he is the victim here. You can disagree with that, even scoff at it. Personally, while I’m not yet convinced he committed a crime, I certainly don’t think he’s a victim. But Corey’s job here was to determine who the victim actually was. Her task was to conduct an investigation, weigh the evidence, then determine what charge, if any, was appropriate. By meeting with Martin’s family, praying with them, and implying in her press conference that she immediately saw them as the victim’s family, she gave the impression that she had made up her mind before she started investigating. And her weak indictment did little to vindicate her of that notion.

None of this is to say Zimmerman didn’t commit a crime. I still really have no idea. But what’s happened in the last couple weeks doesn’t feel like justice. It feels like a railroading. It’s remarkable how many items have been wrongly reported about the case thus far, and nearly all of the false reports were damaging to Zimmerman. (There are a few exceptions involving right-wing sites posting allegedly incriminating photos of Martin that turned out to have been faked or Photoshopped.) Zimmerman’s size relative to Martin was exaggerated, the racial slur he uttered is now discounted even by Corey, and his apparent unsolicited reference to Martin’s race in a 911 call turns out to have been selectively edited. There are other examples. This to me suggests a media and commentariat that very much wants there to be a crime here, not a media and commentariat in search of the truth.

There does seem to be a rift forming between people who practice criminal law (and as far as I know, all the people cited above lean left or libertarian in their politics) and the mostly progressive commentators who are cheering on the indictment. That speaks well of the criminal law crowd. It doesn’t speak well of the others.

The anger and outrage about how black people are treated in the criminal justice system is well-founded, well-supported, and consistent with my own experience reporting on these issues (although I think the common denominator is increasingly more poor than black). And there appears to be some of that history in Sanford as well, particularly in the way police investigate crimes—including this one. I’ve read in several places the proposition that if the races had been reversed that night in Sanford, Trayvon Martin would have spent the last month awaiting his murder trial from a jail cell. I think there’s plenty of history to support that sentiment. But we can’t hang all of the inequities of the criminal justice system on George Zimmerman. He deserves to be tried only on the facts specific to his case. Even gung-ho, wannabe cops deserve due process, and a fair crack at justice.

 

[dannno]

Arizona Iced Tea and Skittles are not typical tools for a criminal.

Yes, apparently Trayvon used his fists.

 

[jmdrake]

Yep. Just like I said, she overcharged.

Assault is putting someone in fear of immediate contact that is harmful or offensive. If Zimmerman so much as reached out a hand toward Trayvon then Zimmerman assaulted Trayvon first. Of course since it looks like Zimmerman is again working with his lawyers he probably won't say that he did that if he hasn't already. And I agree this needs to be discussed in court. Not sure how far this case will go though. The prosecutor overcharged Zimmerman (2nd degree murder instead of manslaughter) and I don't think that's going to make it past first base. Could be wrong though.

We shall see what happens. As for the prosecutor only putting in the "facts" that hurt Zimmerman and leaving out her statement anything that might be remotely helpful....well that's what prosecutors do.

Balko over at The Agitator sums up my thoughts on this current phase of this debacle, nicely.

I hate when this happens.

The same thing happened during the Rodney King affair.

First I was a pansy ass liberal, because I rightly condemned the cops that beat King down.

Then I was a right wing Nazi when I said that the cops, after being found innocent, even though I strongly disagreed with that verdict should not be railroaded into another, federal prosecution.

I'm feeling the same way now over this case.

Especially the "praying with the family" part, Balko is right on the mark there, totally inappropriate.


The Zimmerman Indictment: Reactions

Monday, April 16th, 2012

http://www.theagitator.com/2012/04/16/the-zimmerman-indictment-reactions/

The “Justice for Trayvon” crowd seems pretty enthused with State’s Attorney Angela Corey’s second degree murder indictment of George Zimmerman. The overwhelming consensus among people who study or practice criminal law, however, seems to be that Corey caved to public pressure.

Here’s Jeralyn Merritt at TalkLeft:

Incredibly, it claims without support that Zimmerman was “profiling” Martin. It misrepresents what the dispatcher said to Zimmerman, calling it an “instruction” not to follow Martin. (The dispatcher said, “We don’t need you to do that” to which Zimmerman responded “Ok.”)

It says, without providing a basis, that Zimmerman confronted Trayvon. It then says a struggle ensued, at the end of which, Trayvon was dead. It says witnesses heard arguments, a struggle and cries for help. It does not say anyone saw the actual struggle. (It doesn’t refer to the one witness, John, who told police on his 911 call he did observe the struggle and has later said Zimmerman was on the bottom crying out for help.)

The only support for its belief the voice crying for help was Trayvon’s is his mother’s identification. There’s no reference to Zimmerman’s father or brother saying they believed the voice was Zimmerman’s, or that the officer at the scene overheard Zimmerman say he cried out for help.

It makes no reference to who initiated the physical struggle. Or that Zimmerman was observed bleeding at the scene. It only says “Zimmerman confronted Martin and a struggle ensued.” . . .

The only independent investigation they mention, interviewing witnesses, is the least reliable method of investigation they could have pursued. New versions of witness statements are inherently unreliable. These statements are the product of “post-event information.” in which the witness’ current memory is a co-mingling of actual memories from the event and information learned later, from the media and others.

The likelihood of error in these later statements is even greater if they were made after they “pooled information” with other witnesses, learning what others thought they heard and saw. Memories influenced by post-event information and pooling of information are major causes of faulty eye-witness identification, which in turn is the leading cause of wrongful convictions in this country.

Affidavit = FAIL. That a judge signed off on this as establishing second degree murder which according to Florida jury instructions and case law requires the killing be done with “ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent” is perplexing, to say the least.



Merritt again, in a separate post:

Given that Trayvon and Zimmerman were strangers, if the state’s argument for finding enmity and ill-will is that Zimmerman’s hatred of criminals extended to Trayvon because he assumed Trayvon was a criminal, I don’t think it will prevail. It seems to be just a story, intended to cover the gap in the intent requirement between murder 2 and manslaughter, in a way that that avoids the topic of race. Since it neither proves Zimmerman was the aggressor nor disproves he acted in self-defense or had a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm, the state’s story may be insufficient to establish either offense.

No wonder Angela Corey wanted to bypass the grand jury. She only had 1/2 a ham sandwich and forgot the mustard.



Here’s Ken at Popehat:

It’s a piece of crap.

Explaining why could be an epic post, but I don’t have much time, so I will make it brief.

The affidavit is argumentative, it’s conclusory, and it lacks attribution.

The affidavit takes the lazy way out, starting with a paragraph that says, in effect, “we investigated a bunch of stuff, and here’s what we learned,” followed by a narrative of what the affiant believes happened. Almost nothing is specifically attributed — that is, for most facts asserted in the affidavit, it is impossible to determine whether a witness told the affiant the fact, how the witness knew, or whether it is just a conclusion drawn by the affiant.

This makes the argumentative and conclusory elements of the affivadit that much more problematical. For instance, the affidavit states that Zimmerman “profiled” Martin. But it’s impossible to determine if (1) that’s the affiant’s characterization of the narrative that follows, or (2) that’s intended as a separate factual assertion based on unspecified facts or evidence or witnesses. Similarly, the affidavit makes numerous statements about what Zimmerman thought or intended. It is impossible to determine whether these statements are (1) conclusions based on Zimmerman’s actions and statements to the 911 dispatcher, (2) admissions Zimmerman made in some unspecified statement, or (3) mere argument.

The affiant occasionally gets it right — for instance, stating that Martin’s mother identified his voice on the 911 tapes as the person calling for help. But for the most part, the affidavit offers a narrative of events, not a description of evidence supplying probable cause. Moreover, it is bizarrely vague at the most critical juncture — it blandly states “Zimmerman confronted Martin and a struggle ensued.”

This is not the worst affidavit I’ve ever seen — but it’s damn close, and the decision to proceed based on it in such a high-profile case is stunning.



Here’s Dan Markel:

I watched with surprise at the unfolding decision by state attorney Corey to file second degree murder against Zimmerman. Corey is reputed to be a prosecutor who is both tough and possessing integrity. For all I know, she and her colleagues have all sorts of evidence that hasn’t yet been leaked and that would support a murder charge beyond a reasonable doubt.

But if everything we’ve seen reported is true (and I’ll assume this provides a useful summary), and there aren’t other missing pieces of evidence, I cannot fathom how a jury would return a guilty verdict for murder. If that’s right, what could justify bringing a murder charge? Certainly, the idea of charging high with the hope of inducing a plea could explain bringing a murder charge as a matter of tactics. But it would not be a justified basis for bringing a murder charge. To my mind, it would be repugnant to bring a high charge if the prosecutor herself does not readily believe in it, and if it is not readily provable beyond a reasonable doubt. Some jurisdictions or prosecutors’ offices might say: this is complicated stuff, we have an adversary system, let the jury sort it out. That’s a cop-out. Prosecutors are not partisans or advocates; they’re agents of public justice. I have no special insight into Corey’s evidence files but I sure hope she knows more than we do. Otherwise, a murder charge seems like a terrific injustice, and one that happens so frequently that it’s become difficult to see in plain sight.



Mark Bennett, in his Blawg Review:

Last week saw the arrest of George Zimmerman for second-degree murder in the killing of Trayvon Martin. How far we’ve come since 1963: here the protesters, rather than being willing to go to jail for their principles, wanted the government to put a man in jail for their principles.

The blawgosphere has, to its credit, been generally critical of the charge . . .



Alan Dershowitz:

Most affidavits of probable cause are very thin. This is so thin that it won’t make it past a judge on a second degree murder charge. There’s simply nothing in there that would justify second degree murder. It’s not only thin, it’s irresponsible.”

I think what you have here is an elected public official who made a campaign speech last night for reelection when she gave her presentation and overcharged. This case will not – if the evidence is no stronger than what appears in the probable cause affidavit – this case will result in an acquittal.

This affidavit does not even make it to probable cause. Everything in the affidavit is completely consistent with a defense of self-defense. Everything.



“Bmaz” at Marcy Wheeler’s emptywheel blog breaks the indictment down paragraph by paragraph, and concludes:

It is completely lacking in requisite and necessary attribution for the extremely few and, really, innocuous facts it does present, and the rest comprises nothing but unsupported and wholly conclusory statements meant to infer criminal activity, but which do not even do a competent job of that.

In short, it is shit. To be honest, this affidavit, within its “four corners” arguably does not even meet the necessary burden of probable cause for Manslaughter under Florida section 782.07, much less the “depraved mind” necessary under Florida’s Second Degree Murder charge under section 782.04(2) as charged in the information. George Zimmerman may have committed a crime, but it is not demonstrated in this affidavit, and certainly is not as to the crime charged, Second Degree Murder. Charles Blow can praise this thing until the cows come home in the august pages of the New York Times, but it is still a pile of junk.

But the above discussion is all about what is in the affidavit, let’s talk about what is not in the affidavit as well. The affidavit goes out of its way to spin innocuous and perfectly legal activity into some nebulous vignette of implied criminality, yet self servingly there is not a single fleeting reference to Zimmerman’s claim of having acted in self defense. To be sure, in charging a case, a prosecutor is going to frame the facts to support her charge. But that does not mean she can blithely ignore patently exculpatory facts known to her and germane to the interests of justice. Angela Corey’s affidavit is thusly not just deficient, but dishonest in a very slimy, even if not unethical way. It is patently offensive in that regard.

The case is also patently overcharged. As stated above, I think it is more than arguable that the probable cause affidavit does not even support manslaughter, but it is not remotely close to supporting second degree murder. This is an embarrassment not only for Angela Corey, but the magistrate who signed off on this bunk. It makes the criminal justice system look horrible.



Monroe Freedman looks at the Corey press conference, and questions the prosecutor’s ethics.

Corey: “We know only one category as prosecutors, and that is a ‘V.’ It’s not a ‘B,’ it’s not a ‘W,’ it’s not an ‘H.’ It’s ‘V,’ for victim. That’s who we work tirelessly for. And that’s all we know, is justice for our victims.” Corey also referred to “our precious victims.”

ABA Std. 3-2.1, cmt.: “The idea that the criminal law … is designed to vindicate public rather than private interests is now firmly established.”
ABA Std. 3-3.2, cmt.: “the prosecutor’s client is not the victim.”

Corey: The first thing my team and I did upon being appointed was to meet with Trayvon’s family and pray with them. “We opened our meeting with prayer.” Also, Ms. Corey thanked “all those people across this country who have sent positive energy and prayers our way,” and she asked them to continue to pray for Trayvon’s family and for her team. “Remember, it is Trayvon’s family that are our constitutional victims….”

At this point, do we need the due process of a trial by jury? Can Zimmerman receive the due process of a trial by an impartial jury? Why should anyone care?



The one thing I’d add is that I was taken aback by Corey’s statement at the press conference that the first thing she did after she was appointed to the case was pray with Trayvon Martin’s family. I find the idea of a prosecutor praying with a victim’s family off-putting in general. But it’s particularly troubling in this case.

Here’s why: In this case, Corey’s job wasn’t to discover who committed what everyone acknowledges was a crime. Her job was determine if a crime was committed at all. Remember, George Zimmerman claims that he is the victim here. You can disagree with that, even scoff at it. Personally, while I’m not yet convinced he committed a crime, I certainly don’t think he’s a victim. But Corey’s job here was to determine who the victim actually was. Her task was to conduct an investigation, weigh the evidence, then determine what charge, if any, was appropriate. By meeting with Martin’s family, praying with them, and implying in her press conference that she immediately saw them as the victim’s family, she gave the impression that she had made up her mind before she started investigating. And her weak indictment did little to vindicate her of that notion.

None of this is to say Zimmerman didn’t commit a crime. I still really have no idea. But what’s happened in the last couple weeks doesn’t feel like justice. It feels like a railroading. It’s remarkable how many items have been wrongly reported about the case thus far, and nearly all of the false reports were damaging to Zimmerman. (There are a few exceptions involving right-wing sites posting allegedly incriminating photos of Martin that turned out to have been faked or Photoshopped.) Zimmerman’s size relative to Martin was exaggerated, the racial slur he uttered is now discounted even by Corey, and his apparent unsolicited reference to Martin’s race in a 911 call turns out to have been selectively edited. There are other examples. This to me suggests a media and commentariat that very much wants there to be a crime here, not a media and commentariat in search of the truth.

There does seem to be a rift forming between people who practice criminal law (and as far as I know, all the people cited above lean left or libertarian in their politics) and the mostly progressive commentators who are cheering on the indictment. That speaks well of the criminal law crowd. It doesn’t speak well of the others.

The anger and outrage about how black people are treated in the criminal justice system is well-founded, well-supported, and consistent with my own experience reporting on these issues (although I think the common denominator is increasingly more poor than black). And there appears to be some of that history in Sanford as well, particularly in the way police investigate crimes—including this one. I’ve read in several places the proposition that if the races had been reversed that night in Sanford, Trayvon Martin would have spent the last month awaiting his murder trial from a jail cell. I think there’s plenty of history to support that sentiment. But we can’t hang all of the inequities of the criminal justice system on George Zimmerman. He deserves to be tried only on the facts specific to his case. Even gung-ho, wannabe cops deserve due process, and a fair crack at justice.