REFLECTIONS ON THE GEORGE ZIMMERMAN TRIAL

There is nothing like being timely. Then again, taking the time to reflect has its advantages as well. While the death of Trayvon Martin, like the pointless death of any person, black or white, was tragic, for a nation said to be a nation of laws, it is rather pathetic that most people have absolutely no idea what the law is, including, in this case, the prosecutors. At the time the verdict was delivered one of the prosecutors expressed her shock that George Zimmerman “got away with murder.” Why the shock? The way the law was written, it seems relatively easy to “get away with murder” by provoking someone and “standing one’s ground.” In addition, we have a presumption of innocence and a principle that it is better to let ten guilty people go free than to convict an innocent person. Frankly, I have always thought that latter policy was pretty dumb, considering that the ten guilty persons set free might do a heck of a lot of damage to more than one innocent person, but that’s the system. Having spent considerable time in courtrooms as an expert witness, I have found that juries actually listen to instructions from judges and care about upholding the law. Please remember, the prosecution indicted Zimmerman only because of public pressure. The initial opinion was that they didn’t have a winnable case. That opinion proved to be correct. All the protests by people who saw this in terms of race, and who demanded an indictment, and who got an indictment, didn’t make the case any more winnable when it went to a jury that took the time to listen to the law. As an aside, the NFL football player who suggested that the jurors should go home and kill themselves is part of the stupidity about which I am speaking by the way. I was in Florida when the controversy over indicting or not indicting Zimmerman started to rage and I had the opportunity to read the “stand your ground” law before Zimmerman was arrested. It was clear that while Zimmerman may have “acted like a vigilante,” because of the way the law was written, NOTHING that he did could be proven to be a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. When the prosecutor said that “this isn’t about standing your ground, it’s about getting out of his car,” I decided that a not guilty verdict was inevitable (if the jury held to the law). Zimmerman didn't stay in his car when he was advised to do so. Failing to follow a suggestion is not a crime. He made assumptions about Trayvon Martin. They were wrong. That is not a crime. He followed Trayvon Martin. Following someone is not a crime. He was carrying a legally registered gun. Then, there was a fight (the nature of which is and always will be unclear) during which a teenage boy was shot and killed. Since there is no way to exclude the possibility that George Zimmerman FELT he was in mortal danger, (he didn’t have to prove that he was in mortal danger), he had a right to use self-defense. When the law was intelligent, one could defend one’s self in one’s home (the castle theory) but outside one’s home, one has to back away. Under stand your ground, one can basically provoke a fight outside one’s home and then, when one is in mortal danger, (or when one thinks he is in mortal danger) justifiably use lethal force. Sounds dumb on the surface, but that’s the law. I keep hearing people say that Trayvon Martin didn’t do anything wrong. That is probably true but irrelevant under the law. If he picked a fight, that wasn’t very smart, but again, we have no reason to know if he did or didn’t. But the point is that Trayvon Martin wasn’t on trial for a crime. George Zimmerman was and not knowing what was happening in the fight, in view of conflicting versions of the fact, and under the presumption of innocence, there was no way under the law to convict George Zimmerman of a crime. Regardless of who started the fight or created the circumstances that led to a fight, there was no way to prove that George Zimmerman didn’t feel that he was in mortal danger. As has been noted by commentators, presumption of innocence does NOT mean that they arrested the wrong guy; someone else did it. Presumption of innocence means that unless one is certain, beyond a reasonable doubt, assume that a crime was not committed. If one doesn’t like the result, complain about the law regarding “stand your ground,” complain about the presumption of innocence in our system, complain about the fact that in criminal trials we demand proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but don’t complain about the jury. I have no doubt that racism exists and that George Zimmerman’s assessment of Trayvon Martin was based on race. However, that is not a crime. The police may not be able to profile, but a private citizen can think what he wants. The existence of racism means – as far as this case is concerned – that in our society a bad law regarding guns and self-defense is more likely to have disastrous consequences. The jury rendered the verdict that was consistent with the law, a bad law in my opinion, but still the law. Since the verdict was rendered, there has been more focus on how the law enabled it to happen. One of the jurors even came forward and said that she felt that George Zimmerman was getting away with murder, but that it was the only verdict she could render considering the judge’s instructions. Don’t blame the jurors. Blame the legislators. When the legislature makes murder legal under certain circumstances by giving people the right to provoke and then use lethal force to protect themselves, put the blame where it lies. (Required self-disclosure: Based on its performance in recent years I have to believe that the Tennessee legislature is far worse than the Florida legislature, but since there are no established criteria, there is no way to judge.) And by the way, for people considering OJ, where the families of the victims took to the civil courts after the criminal case led to a not guilty verdict, please read the Florida law on the right to request immunity from civil suits under the “stand your ground” law before advocating that position. It sounds good to say, “Take it to civil court,” where one only needs a reasonable degree of certainty instead of having the criteria be “beyond a reasonable doubt,” but the Florida law undermines that position. In the time since the verdict was delivered two of the most intelligent comments I heard came from a black minister (whose name I did not catch) and from someone whose politics are nowhere near mine, Newt Gingrich. They both pointed out that while people had a right to be upset about the death of Trayvon Martin, if they are truly concerned about young black boys being shot and killed they should recognize the simple fact that in the overwhelming majority of the cases it is other black boys who are doing the killing.