Osler's Razor

Wow! Thanks so much, Mark, for this super insightful window in the "soul of a prosecutor." Really gripping.

A few things I would add or contest:

My initial reaction is that you give Caiaphas and Angela Corey a little too much credit. Thank you for helping me see their dilemma--but, in both cases, it seems to me that they submitted to a political prosecution and used their prodigious talents and resources not so much in a search for the truth but as vehicles to appease an angry mob and further a bigger agenda.

In addition, there are allegations that the prosecution bent the rules to give themselves an even greater advantage. And, ike Caiaphas, when the evidence proved unconvincing, the Zimmerman prosecution went with an emotional plea and histrionics. No wonder the defense emerged with a sense of grievance. And, as far as the defense team's assertions that the State should not have brought the case, this too was the result of facts on the ground. The State decided to proceed with a case that many professionals said should not have been brought.

On the other hand, back to politics, this was a case that probably should not have been tried, but, for a number of reasons, had to be resolved in the light of day in a public courtroom. So, again, I see your point that they found themselves in a no-win situation.

As for the aftermath, the prosecution has called the man they could not convict a "murderer." That seems like bad form or worse. However, I really do appreciate your explanation of the emotional roller coaster they must be on.

One last quibble: I agree that there was a dearth of objective witnesses. But, undoubtedly, the most compelling witness and, arguably, the most significant, was John Good, who watched much of the struggle from18-feet away and corroborated much of the defendant's account.
 

Mr. Osler, excellent insights and well written, and W.F, your response is almost mine.

Where I differ is in this. A case which cannot jsutifiably be brought on the evidence most certainly should not be brought in order to appease public opinion, or to "resolve" extraneous issues it in the light of day and in a court room.

The aftermath pf this trial, including the prosecutor's post trial statements, the DOJ's moving forward with a gigantic further investigation to try to find race as a factor, the outcry from a substantial body politic and professional rable rousers, and the refusal of many in the media to accept the verdict, prove an acquital in the light of day, resolves nothing.

Putting a defendant through everything Mr. Zmmerman has been put through to make a point is just plain wrong, not to say in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct, given the facts which the prosecutor knew better than anyone. Prosecutors have a higher duty, and this case is an egregious example of the tendency of some prosecutors to "punt," by caving in to public pressure.

I do not say what I have said because of any animus to prosecutors. My daughter is a very successful prosecutor in a distant parish. She and I are of the same mind on this one.

The Florida prosecutors acted disgracefully, not because they lost, but because they tried an insubstantial case for all of the wrong reasons, and because they continue after the trial to feed the passions of those who have never been interested in the facts.
 

WF--

I don't disagree with your points, and I don't think they are contrary to the piece, which was really about something much broader than this one case.

Anon, I'm surprised that the DOJ would pursue this. If they really care about racial outcomes and fairness, they should start not by second-guessing a jury, but by commuting the sentences of the 5,000+ (and nearly all black) men and women in federal prison who are serving time under crack laws that have been amended but not made retroactive.
 

Until you raised it i had not given much thought to crack convictions and laws. Does seem unfair, but wouldn't this analysis apply equally to convictions under all other laws which may have have been subsequently amended or repealed? That doesn't seem right either.

As Pogo was given to say,"Hoo,boy!"
 

It's not much of an issue, since (except for crack) we almost never lower sentences through legislation, for obvious political reasons. At the federal level, the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 (which lowered the sentences) is fairly unique.