Thursday, July 18, 2013
Political Mayhem Thursday: The Trayvon Martin verdict
Here is part of the coverage from the New York Times:
From the start, prosecutors faced a difficult task in proving second-degree murder. That charge required Mr. Zimmerman to have evinced a “depraved mind,” brimming with ill will, hatred, spite or evil intent, when he shot Mr. Martin.
Manslaughter, which under Florida law is typically added as a lesser charge if either side requests it, was a lower bar. Jurors needed to decide only that Mr. Zimmerman put himself in a situation that culminated in Mr. Martin’s death.
But because of Florida’s laws, prosecutors had to persuade jurors beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Zimmerman did not act in self-defense. A shortage of evidence in the case made that a high hurdle, legal experts said.
Even after three weeks of testimony, the fight between Mr. Martin and Mr. Zimmerman on that rainy night was a muddle, fodder for reasonable doubt. It remained unclear who had started it, who screamed for help, who threw the first punch and at what point Mr. Zimmerman drew his gun. There were no witnesses to the shooting.
I'm a former prosecutor. I teach criminal law. In short, I have two conclusions. First, the Florida "stand your ground law," which does not require retreat from a dangerous situation and allows you to shoot someone you perceive as threatening rather than leave the situation, is terribly flawed. The facts of this event, where Zimmerman followed Martin before the shooting, illustrate the precise contours of that flaw.
Second, I'm not sure the verdict was wrong. There did not seem to be much evidence of what actually happened, and there were no surviving witnesses (other than Mr. Zimmerman) to the incident. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is a high burden, and that burden may not have been reached.
What do you thing of this outcome, and what this case will mean in the future?
Comments:
<< Home
This is what I posted on FB regarding this case on Monday.
"I think we have lost sight of what the Trayvon Martin case was about. A young man lost his life because of Florida's Stand your Ground law. A young man was killed because a person on neighborhood watch did not follow the instructions of the POLICE after contacting them about a "suspicious" young man walking through the neighborhood. Prior to Mr. Zimmerman ignoring the directive of the POLICE their was no contact. The prosecutor(s) did an abysmal job of keeping these facts in the forefront or their case; they allowed the defense to put Trayvon Martin on trial; a young man who could not defend himself in a court of law. I hope Mr. Zimmerman is losing sleep over the horrific decision he made 17 months ago and carries the guilt of killing this young man with him for the rest of his life. His personal albatross."
That said... I don't think the evidence existed to prove the 'charges' beyond a reasonable doubt. I wonder if there was a more appropriate charge that the State should have been used to charge Mr. Zimmerman.
He ignored the directive of the police (dispatchers) and took matters into his own hands. WHY? Was Trayvon doing anything other than walking down the street or sidewalk? Mr. Zimmerman previously had applied for a job with the police dept. and did not get a job. Was he trying to show he was worthy, that he would have made a capable officer? We will never know.
"I think we have lost sight of what the Trayvon Martin case was about. A young man lost his life because of Florida's Stand your Ground law. A young man was killed because a person on neighborhood watch did not follow the instructions of the POLICE after contacting them about a "suspicious" young man walking through the neighborhood. Prior to Mr. Zimmerman ignoring the directive of the POLICE their was no contact. The prosecutor(s) did an abysmal job of keeping these facts in the forefront or their case; they allowed the defense to put Trayvon Martin on trial; a young man who could not defend himself in a court of law. I hope Mr. Zimmerman is losing sleep over the horrific decision he made 17 months ago and carries the guilt of killing this young man with him for the rest of his life. His personal albatross."
That said... I don't think the evidence existed to prove the 'charges' beyond a reasonable doubt. I wonder if there was a more appropriate charge that the State should have been used to charge Mr. Zimmerman.
He ignored the directive of the police (dispatchers) and took matters into his own hands. WHY? Was Trayvon doing anything other than walking down the street or sidewalk? Mr. Zimmerman previously had applied for a job with the police dept. and did not get a job. Was he trying to show he was worthy, that he would have made a capable officer? We will never know.
Lots of thoughts.
First Off: kudos to you, Mark, for your prescience on "stand your ground." You anticipated the remarks made my the Attorney General this week by more than a year. For all I know, he may have cribbed your paper. I know that happens.
However, I actually think "stand your ground" as the focus of the case is somewhat misleading. Of course, I am not a lawyer. And I respect your expertise. But, from my vantage point, here is what I saw. The defense completely ignored / eschewed "stand your ground," and the prosecution said "stand your ground" did not impact the case. Of course, I know there was some "stand your ground" language in the jury instruction. But the other night on the Greta Van Susteren show, she read "stand your ground" language from a federal statute. I heard many legal beagles say this turned out to be a basic self defense case (not a "stand your ground case").
Moreover, Zimmerman claimed he did retreat (going back to his car initially and then demurring when Trayvon confronted him in the dark). And, of course, the state never presented any direct evidence to contradict those claims.
In general, this was a tragic case.
A 17-year-old young man, unarmed, engaged in no criminal activity, and in a place he had a right to be lost his life by the hand of another man. Someone should pay. Nobody did. Our sense of justice cries out for resolution.
On the other hand, this tragic affair turned out to be more complicated than the basic reading. We now know that both parties made serious (fatal) errors in judgment that ended in an horrific and unnecessary loss of life, disaster for the Martin and Zimmerman families, and severe cultural trauma for so many of us.
I do believe, as I have from the beginning, that the gun emboldened George Zimmerman to get out of his car and follow the person he suspected of being "up to no good." If there were no gun, I think it is safe to say that Zimmerman would have stayed in his car and no one would have died. Much more culpable in this death than "stand your ground" seemingly was "concealed carry."
On the other hand, and what is not said enough, are these two takeaways:
1. Call 911. Why does a person walking home in the dark with a phone in hand not call 911, if he feels he is being stalked. If that was a result of his distrust of the police, that is the most alarming societal problem in need of redress in this tragedy with myriad troubling issues. Call 911. Tell your children to Call 911. Teach them to trust the police.
2. Avoid the Conflict. GZ should have stayed in his care. And Trayvon should have headed for home when he had his chance. Ironically, the defense probably sealed the win in this case when they emphasized the time Trayvon had to "retreat." At least a minute during which GZ lost contact with Trayvon (the defense calculated four minutes). Run! Retreat! Get the heck out of there. Do not circle back.
First Off: kudos to you, Mark, for your prescience on "stand your ground." You anticipated the remarks made my the Attorney General this week by more than a year. For all I know, he may have cribbed your paper. I know that happens.
However, I actually think "stand your ground" as the focus of the case is somewhat misleading. Of course, I am not a lawyer. And I respect your expertise. But, from my vantage point, here is what I saw. The defense completely ignored / eschewed "stand your ground," and the prosecution said "stand your ground" did not impact the case. Of course, I know there was some "stand your ground" language in the jury instruction. But the other night on the Greta Van Susteren show, she read "stand your ground" language from a federal statute. I heard many legal beagles say this turned out to be a basic self defense case (not a "stand your ground case").
Moreover, Zimmerman claimed he did retreat (going back to his car initially and then demurring when Trayvon confronted him in the dark). And, of course, the state never presented any direct evidence to contradict those claims.
In general, this was a tragic case.
A 17-year-old young man, unarmed, engaged in no criminal activity, and in a place he had a right to be lost his life by the hand of another man. Someone should pay. Nobody did. Our sense of justice cries out for resolution.
On the other hand, this tragic affair turned out to be more complicated than the basic reading. We now know that both parties made serious (fatal) errors in judgment that ended in an horrific and unnecessary loss of life, disaster for the Martin and Zimmerman families, and severe cultural trauma for so many of us.
I do believe, as I have from the beginning, that the gun emboldened George Zimmerman to get out of his car and follow the person he suspected of being "up to no good." If there were no gun, I think it is safe to say that Zimmerman would have stayed in his car and no one would have died. Much more culpable in this death than "stand your ground" seemingly was "concealed carry."
On the other hand, and what is not said enough, are these two takeaways:
1. Call 911. Why does a person walking home in the dark with a phone in hand not call 911, if he feels he is being stalked. If that was a result of his distrust of the police, that is the most alarming societal problem in need of redress in this tragedy with myriad troubling issues. Call 911. Tell your children to Call 911. Teach them to trust the police.
2. Avoid the Conflict. GZ should have stayed in his care. And Trayvon should have headed for home when he had his chance. Ironically, the defense probably sealed the win in this case when they emphasized the time Trayvon had to "retreat." At least a minute during which GZ lost contact with Trayvon (the defense calculated four minutes). Run! Retreat! Get the heck out of there. Do not circle back.
FL prosecutors forgot to tell a narrative and lost the jury. The story was never about race; it was always about a man who put himself into a situation that sparked danger, and, feeling that situation slip away from him, recklessly took a life.
If I had tried the case, I would have charged manslaughter and presented it like that. Also, I would have actually paid attention to Juror B27-whatever's voir dire and struck an obviously prejudiced witness. She itched to be on that jury and vote to acquit, and the prosecutor should turn in his license for missing tells like that.
-a Texas prosecutor
If I had tried the case, I would have charged manslaughter and presented it like that. Also, I would have actually paid attention to Juror B27-whatever's voir dire and struck an obviously prejudiced witness. She itched to be on that jury and vote to acquit, and the prosecutor should turn in his license for missing tells like that.
-a Texas prosecutor
# posted by 
: 5:08 PM
: 5:08 PM
C. writes:
"I hope Mr. Zimmerman is losing sleep over the horrific deision he made 17 months ago and carries guilt of killing this young man with him for the rest of his life. His personal albatross."
I hope not. I hope that as Rideau-look him up-he matures, modifies his perspective on the use of guns, and develops into a decent and productive citizen. One cannot expect that to happen with a lifetime of lost sleep, guilt and an albatross around his neck. I agree that he made a mistake, but if his version of events is what really happened, and no ones knows that it did not, I would expect him to have dep and wounding regrets for a while, then heal and go on with life as best he can. I do not see the wisdom, justice or virtue in standing in his way, as some will undoubtedly do.
As for what the case means for the future, I suppose there will be efforts, some successful, some not, to amend the "Stand Your Ground Laws," but I hope there will be no effort to diminish the traditional self-defense defense or the so-called "castle" defense.
I don't expect this, but it would be a good thing if the media would begin to report the news of criminal cases (and civil cases, as well) without taking sides and "convicting" the defendant. That is not their job. As Joe Friday so often and famously said," Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts."
To paraphrase a colleague, who with the rest of a large group of lawyers in a case I had years ago, referring to a lawyer who had earned by his conduct and attitude the scorn of even his co-counsel:
"What can be said of this case that has not already been said of rickets!"
Mr. Osler, your analysis is very like mine, so, naturally, I congratulate you.
"I hope Mr. Zimmerman is losing sleep over the horrific deision he made 17 months ago and carries guilt of killing this young man with him for the rest of his life. His personal albatross."
I hope not. I hope that as Rideau-look him up-he matures, modifies his perspective on the use of guns, and develops into a decent and productive citizen. One cannot expect that to happen with a lifetime of lost sleep, guilt and an albatross around his neck. I agree that he made a mistake, but if his version of events is what really happened, and no ones knows that it did not, I would expect him to have dep and wounding regrets for a while, then heal and go on with life as best he can. I do not see the wisdom, justice or virtue in standing in his way, as some will undoubtedly do.
As for what the case means for the future, I suppose there will be efforts, some successful, some not, to amend the "Stand Your Ground Laws," but I hope there will be no effort to diminish the traditional self-defense defense or the so-called "castle" defense.
I don't expect this, but it would be a good thing if the media would begin to report the news of criminal cases (and civil cases, as well) without taking sides and "convicting" the defendant. That is not their job. As Joe Friday so often and famously said," Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts."
To paraphrase a colleague, who with the rest of a large group of lawyers in a case I had years ago, referring to a lawyer who had earned by his conduct and attitude the scorn of even his co-counsel:
"What can be said of this case that has not already been said of rickets!"
Mr. Osler, your analysis is very like mine, so, naturally, I congratulate you.
# posted by : 5:49 PM
: 5:49 PM
Waco Farmer-- Part of what you wrote rang especially true to me. We don't want people with guns following around those they think are "up to no good," unless those people are police officers. Vigilantes are not a force for good, generally.
Anon 5:49 - I just looked up Rideau. (FYI - I am not in the legal profession) Interesting but if I am reading Wikipedia correctly Rideau did in fact kill someone (in panic?) and served time - all be it more than he should have.
Carrying this guilt does not mean someone can not become a productive member of society. In fact, it would (hopefully) have a great impact on his future decisions.
On a side note, the media turned this into a circus. I am not sure why 'this' trial needed to be broadcast live everyday. I think this served to incite the public further over the jury's decision. The media should cover the news not create the news.
Post a Comment
Carrying this guilt does not mean someone can not become a productive member of society. In fact, it would (hopefully) have a great impact on his future decisions.
On a side note, the media turned this into a circus. I am not sure why 'this' trial needed to be broadcast live everyday. I think this served to incite the public further over the jury's decision. The media should cover the news not create the news.
<< Home
