George Zimmerman
There is, perhaps, no single more important decision a prosecutor makes than determining what to charge a defendant with in a given action. With the lessons of the Casey Anthony trial still fresh in our minds, we wonder whether the decision to charge George Zimmerman with second-degree murder in the death of Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Florida, was a strategic overreach that could doom the chances of obtaining a conviction of any sort.
We are not here to judge Mr. Zimmerman’s guilt or innocence. That is up to the jury. But let’s take a look at what we know and don’t know.
We know that on the evening of February 26, 2012, while patrolling his local streets as a neighborhood watchman, Zimmerman shot and killed 17-year-old Trayvon Martin with a Kel-Tec FP-9 semi-automatic pistol.
We know that Mr. Zimmerman, who is of mixed Latin/Caucasian race, felt threatened by Mr. Martin, who was African American.
We also know that as it turned out, and whatever Zimmerman may have suspected, Martin was not carrying a weapon when he was shot.
Just about everything else is in dispute or open to speculation.
Given this set of facts, it would not be much of a reach to conclude – if the testimony and the evidence presented in court bear this out – that Zimmerman was hasty, negligent, overly ambitious, had a cop-wannabe attitude, or simply had a preconceived bias that young black men in hoodies were up to no good and dangerous. On any of those bases, it would not be unreasonable to conclude that Zimmerman had killed Martin wrongfully. That is called voluntary manslaughter. The defendant had the mens era, or intent to kill, but there were mitigating factors or “attendant circumstances,” such as fear for his own life.
But second degree murder may be a stretch. That is, beyond showing that Zimmerman overreacted to the threat at hand, the prosecution will have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman basically wanted to kill this young man he encountered and that none of the attendant circumstances was in any way sufficient to make him fear for his own life. In other words, they essentially have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt what was going through Zimmerman’s mind in the minutes and seconds before Martin’s death.
Given that there were wounds on Zimmerman’s body – their seriousness is in dispute – and that there was some sort of altercation between him and Martin, that is a tall order in a case like this.
Why is this distinction important? Can’t the jury just decide for itself if there is evidence for second-degree murder and, if not, if there is then enough for manslaughter? Yes and no.
Of course the jury can decide. But when a prosecution team overreaches on charging and is not able to make its case for the “first choice,” jurors have an understandable tendency to regard the “second choice” with a good deal of skepticism. That is to say, You didn’t make your case for second degree murder, so were you just playing us? Did you say, “Let’s take a shot at the big one and if they don’t buy it, we can always fall back on manslaughter.”?
Any prosecution risks its credibility in this manner. We sincerely believe that if the Casey Anthony prosecution had charged on a level that they could prove, they could have put her away for some considerable period of time. On the other hand, asking for a verdict of capital murder when you can’t even connect the defendant to the body, time or means of death, is asking a jury to go way out on a speculative limb.
Casey Anthony may very well have murdered her child with malice aforethought. George Zimmerman may very well have killed Trayvon Martin for reasons beyond self-defense. But in neither case are the facts there to prove it. And that is the standard we must live up to if we are serious about justice.
btw…when I participated in the online chat, I queried the fact that their was a narcotics investigator involved. I recalled in a forum that Mr Douglas had a conversation and clarified the difference between narcotics and homicide where a narcotics investigator finds a suspect and builds a case whereas a homicide investigator follows the evidence.
I think it was clearly ‘overreach’ as was the ‘Casey Anthony’ case.
They could have got her on ‘child abandonment’ (which was ‘admitted’ in the beginning facts) and on ‘causing the death of a child’. It would have been an easy conviction and given the circumstances (that there very well may have been more) a 10-20 year sentence. Instead… 1st degree murder and death penalty…absurd…it’s like your charging ‘Ted Bundy’….not a homeless single mother who abandoned her kid and maybe caused her death thereby.
It’s as bad as the Amanda Knox case nonsense in Italy.
These prosecutors (persecutors?) seem to be….tabloid media driven…and driven by….politics/ race/ political party/ national identity etc….instead of professional law enforcement/ professional legal ethics. And they keep losing cases. Maybe we should require more professional qualifications/ behavior from them?
In the case of Trayvon Martin… Voluntary or even Involuntary (causing death by negligence) Manslaughter would I think have been a proper charge (only because Zimmerman was a unpaid night watchman allowed to carry a gun without training following Martin in full dark between buildings without back up or full communications.
Seems to be two predominant schools of thought when it comes to women violent offenders: those who say women always get off, unlike men who do the same thing; and those who think there’s something extra heinous about a female criminal, especially violent criminal, especially if the female is a “party girl.” I think it just chills men to the bone that women can be violent because it’s been heavily weighted in the other direction for centuries.
I think one of the main distinctions between violent men and women, Cornerstone, is that when women commit a heinous act, it is usually against someone they already know, with a specific goal in mind. Men are much more likely to harm a stranger for whatever ego and sexual gratification it gives them. In other words, men are much more likely to be predators than women. And if a woman kills a stranger, it is usually because she is participating in a criminal enterprise (crime for money or other valuables) that turns into a felony murder. Thanks for your comments.
You make some very good points, Watson.
I agree there are really fundamental differences in men and women who commit murders. In my mind, it’s clearly different because women have a victim mindset that goes back to the dawn of humanity, so in a sense they are always on the defensive. That’s why you see a woman finally kill someone long after any triggering conflict. It’s a last resort for many of them and it takes them a very long time to accept they can’t change the man and that the man can be loving one minute and deadly the next.
A lot of people, especially men, really don’t understand how valid that is.
The other interesting thing is the reaction from men who really resent that murderers such as Andrea Yates are quickly diagnosed as mentally ill. Granted, a man who does the same thing has mental issues too, but a lot of people just don’t understand that fine line between someone capable of enjoying the murder of people and children and those who are truly driven by insanity; in Yates’ case, insanity that was evident on pretty much the first reports because she’d been so delusional leading up to the act.
I just think it’s interesting that there is this special ire for women who become murderers, when it’s been them who were beat down for centuries. I’d think the ire ought to weigh on the other side, if any.
And I agree with Cornerstone’s comments below. Whereas Susan Smith drowning her children in her car in 1994 was an example of a disturbed person who was still in command of her actions, Andrea Yates was clearly suffering from psychotic delusions. It is sometimes difficult to make these distinctions, but they are extremely important. Smith was capable of forming a criminal intent; Yates was not.
I’ll never be able to get the Susan Smith case out of my head: narcissistic, sociopathic, deliberate.
Another one I’ll never forget because the dynamic was so weird was the Candace Montgomery ax killing of Betty Gore, ruled self-defense. Montgomery was having an affair with Gore’s husband. They were neighbors whose kids knew each other. Gore came over one day something to do with the kids and confronted Montgomery about the affair and came at her with the ax. But Montgomery wrested the ax from her and then went into overkill mode, hitting Gore 41 times. Montgomery was acquitted after only 5 hours.
It might be just something to think about this particular week.
Jury finds George Zimmerman Not Guilty.
Al Sharpton says the family will pursue a civil case against George Zimmerman and he will be calling on the DOJ to reopen their case to see if there are any civil rights violations
Had it been known before Zimmerman was arrested that he had black heritage, this case would most likely would not have made the news, and nothing would have became of it, but because those with political agenda’s use race baiting to futher their personal interest it has become headline news. If Zimmerman is not found guilty there will be riots on the street, which have been threatened, even though the evidence does not support his guilt. The chief of police who was fired for refusing to arrest Treyvon Martin said there wasn’t evidence enough to make an arrest and experts have determined that Zimmerman didn’t have a choice but to shoot Martin in order to defend himself. It was Zimmerman’s voice on the 911 tapes calling for help and not Martin’s as was originally reported.
From the beginning Martin was portrayed as an innocent child, and most people carry in their mind the photo that was released of him as an innocent child, when he is in fact he was a teenage street thug who was most likely involved in numerous home invasions and thefts that had been occuring in the area.
In recent developments the judge has inserted her feelings into the case and has from the beginning of the trial refused to allow information to be entered into evidence that cast Martin in an unfavorable light.
Recent reports are showing now that the justice department funded the rallies that resulted in Zimmerman being arrested with tax payer money.
Having trouble understanding why all the crooked politicians have not been arrested and are still in office.
Almost any case involving white on black crime will become headline news, but when black on white crime or black on black crimes occur, which are more common, such as the numerous killings in Chicago, it may or may not be reported or you may hear a single report about such crimes several days after they occur.
If people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharplin, really cared about the black people then perhaps they should address these issues, or the fact that so many black babies are being aborted, but you won’t hear from them, because their real agenda is race baiting and gun control.
The news has reported on this case almost daily, but how many of you heard about the beheading of 2 Christians in New Jersey, and buried in a backyard, by the home of the Muslim man who killed them? I saw one story about this 2 days after it happened and they had already made an arrest. No other news has been reported about it because it doesn’t serve the agenda of politicians in creating division amongst the citizens of this country.
Even their backgrounds, if what you read can be believed, is kind of a wash. Supposedly Zimmerman has domestic violence and possible alcoholism in his background; Trayvon, though not admissible, was caught with a bag of burglary tools and women’s jewelry.
I only know that I am very tired of hearing Trayvon portrayed as a “little boy getting Skittles.” I can only be subjective about this case and say that the year I spent being terrorized by a 15-year-old “little boy” who was breaking and entering and stealing my underwear and jewelry and then, the second time, taking my dad’s rifle I had on loan, then cutting my phone cord, I’d have given anything to have a Crime Watch person patrolling my street. And if they’d been avid, so much the better. Because coming home alone to that with no way to use the phone is terrifying. In 1973, no one was very avid about a kid who stole panties, but he changed my sense of security forever.
Thankfully, not long after that, we began hearing from a couple of pioneer profilers, who would have known this kid wasn’t harmless, and I thank them (sadly, one in memorium) for continuing to educate the masses.
“Trayvon, though not admissible, was caught with a bag of burglary tools and women’s jewelry.”
Is that true? I don’t pretend to be an expert on this case, but I want to learn. Can you verify this?
Thanks.
The state did a poor job from a detectives standpoint. They never seemed to have their heart in this one, why the case attrition? Don’t charge someone if you can’t defend it.
I heard it in the media at the beginning, just after the incident. Then I heard it again with the commentators recently. He was a minor, so the judge disallowed his juvenile record, just as she disallowed texts just in the last 24 hours that purportedly infer he was gun-shopping. Now, can I vouch for the accuracy of commentators on what I can only refer to these days as “so-called news stations”? No. But that’s the scuttlebutt.
Today, a woman living in the same community testified about being home with infant when “two African-American males,” her words, first knocked several times and then broke in through the patio door. The judge was very strict about ruling that Martin’s name cannot be brought up in regard to past offenses, so she testified that there were two intruders and was allowed to give the name of the other one, leaving only a strong inference. The inference wouldn’t have been as strong as it was had the prosecution asked her on cross if either of the men were Martin, but they didn’t, and that speaks volumes. She provided strong character testimony. She didn’t know Zimmerman prior but said after the break-in, he came over and talked to her about it more than once and brought her a lock for the sliding glass door. She made him sound like an awfully good neighbor.
Yesterday, an immediate neighbor with whom he is acquainted — her words “friendly neighbors” — provided strong testimony that it was his voice on the tape, and she happened to be black. I’m sure she’s fearing retaliation about now, so she was very brave to do it , and very credible.
My opinion, now that defense has rested, is Zimmerman could have kept himself out of trouble by following the advice of the police when they told him to back off, but that he isn’t really under their control; and that he has a license to carry a concealed weapon, although any Neighborhood Watch group will tell you not to carry it on watch. So he crossed what I will call a couple of feint lines and now could go to jail. But the physical evidence is very strong that Martin beat him up and was the one on top and was leaning over him (proven by ballistics evidence) when he got shot.
There were also mistakes made in allowing the extended Martin family to listen to the tape in the Mayor’s office after the City Manager had prevented the police from being in attendance and making sure it was presented to each individually, which would have prevented tainted testimony.
Of course, Martin’s dad initially said it was not his son’s voice on the tape.
I believe they at least have enough for reasonable doubt. But if not, Zimmerman will do quite a few years because Florida has a tough manslaughter sentence.
Your comments are highly relevant and very moving, Cornerstone. There is often a “linkage blindness” that prevents police and ordinary citizens from connecting the dots, and regardless of how this particular case turns out, you have made an eloquent case for seeing the entire picture. Thanks so much for this comment.
No, thank you and Mr. Douglas for such a wonderful blog.
Thanks for this info Cornerstone.
What does Zimmerman’s past tell us? Like the old maxim says it is a good predictor to the future of an individuals behavior. Is he a greater than average risk to society?
YES, and he has this in his life on paper, I don’t think he was acting within the right of a sworn officer. That changes everything. If he was a civilian security officer he better have the permits. If I were the state I would also charge him with impersonating a law enforcement officer as well as hindering a police investigation, ( see that one is an extra they can’t manipulate justice to serve a vendetta.) The jury will see this through his behavior. I hope, because I do.
I think that if this investigation has been done properly from the beginning then the jury will be exposed to his statements to police.
In a case like this a confession is not always needed to prove murder, the inconsistencies within his description of events will speak volumes to a jury and the truth. I am assuming the District Attorney has incriminating statements or Zimmerman will take the stand which also can show the jury the truth. I believe they will prove he killed him with more than gross negligent intent. I believe they can show that his injuries and his past were a means to obstruct the police investigation, and this can be done by a good interview. I hope the police did a good job or else your correct the state over played it’s hand and the jury will either acquit him or come back with the lesser charge of voluntary manslaughter. As law enforcement officers we have force continuum and assaulting a policeman with hands does not escalate the lawmen to use his gun. This all shows malice in his intent. Not just over reacting to a situation.