MIKE HUCKABEE: You have said that you thought the prosecutor ought to be disbarred, that's a pretty serious type of violation to get a person disbarred. It is that serious to you?
ALAN DERSHOWITZ: Right, it is. She submitted an affidavit that was, if not perjurious, completely misleading. She violated all kinds of rules of the profession, and her conduct bordered on criminal conduct. She, by the way, has a horrible reputation in Florida. She's known for overcharging, she's known for being highly political. And in this case, of course she overcharged. Halfway through the trial she realized she wasn't going to get a second degree murder verdict, so she asked for a compromised verdict, for manslaughter. And then, she went even further and said that she was going to charge him with child abuse and felony murder. That was such a stretch that it goes beyond anything professionally responsible. She was among the most irresponsible prosecutors I've seen in 50 years of litigating cases, and believe me, I've seen good prosecutors, bad prosecutors, but rarely have I seen one as bad as this prosecutor, [Angela] Cory. (Huckabee, July 14, 2013)
#2
That's because, as The Professor says, prosectors have no skin in the game and are rarley punished for their actions (one exception being the Duke lacrosse nonsense, and only because those boys came from families that could afford high-powered attorneys).
#4
Several years ago I was called to serve jury duty for a trial eerily similar to the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman trial. As a former juror I was somewhat aghast when I learned that the judge and the prosecution had been allowed to include additional charges after testimony had concluded.
Prior to the beginning of the trial I was involved in, all primary and secondary jurors met for two full days to receive instructions on the statutes and to what points of law constitutes guilt or innocence in each leagal instance. After the trial commenced we met each morning before we were seated and were briefed on the testimony we should expect to hear that day. We were instructed on decisions that we would be required to make as to whether or not testimony proved guilt or innocence on each point of each one of the statutes requirements.
During a murder trial jurors are required to digest and understand huge amounts of information. The entire process is designed to assist jurors in makeing decisions a point at a time during the time that the testimony is being presented. We were instructed to take notes as to why we decided the way we did on each point to assist us in presenting our argument, if necessary, during the deliberation phase. We were also given various materials to assist us in making decisions as to whether or not each requirement of a law had or had not been fulfilled by the testimony we were hearing.
From a jurors point of view the actions of the judge in the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman trial throws the whole process into complete disarray. How can a juror be expected to work their way through to a proper final vedict if they do not know each and every charge the defendent is charged with BEFORE they hear testimony ? It's an impossible task to assign to the jury to go back and try to make decisions on charges they did not even know existed or statutes they did not understand before they heard testimony.
From the perspective of a former juror this trial can only be seen as a an absolute travesty. And that does not even take into consideration the damage done to the defense by the judge refuseing to make decisions on the evidence she will allow prior to the beginning of the trial or allow ample time for the defence to adjust or recover or attempt necessary discovery as a result of her decisions.
I consider the inclusion of additional charges as a last ditch effort on the part of the judge and prosecution to salvage at least some kind of a guilty verdict to justify themselves and the fact that the case should never ever have been brought to trial in the first place.
On the morning of the second day of deliberation (of the George Zimmerman trial) the jury asked the judge to send in more information on the laws conserning manslaughter (they probably needed instruction on the entire statute). The judge sent back a note that they needed to be more specific.
Try to imagine the dismay of a jurror that had already been sequestered for more than three weeks, at the prospect of having start from the beginning, learn the laws, and then try to work their way through each and every complicated issue they were presented. An extremely time consumeing and impossible task.
I can easily imagine the jurors throwing their hands in the air and saying they cannot possibly expect us to do this. We can only deliberate on what we know and we don't know anything about manslaughter. Most if not all the jury probably already had their minds made up about the first degree murder charge and the actions of the judge just further sealed their decisions. Those jurors who may have been indecisive were probably more than willing to forgo manslaughter deliberations and just go along with those advocateing for a not guilty verdict.
The entire fiasco from beginning to end should never have happened. If the DOJ wants to investigate something they should investigate the attempted railroading of a man named George Zimmerman by both the Federal and the Florida State judicial systems.
#5
Maybe as the light shines on this prosecuter a few other cases she's abused will get more attention. I'm speaking primarily about the black lady who was apparantly arrested for firing a warning shot to scare off a husband who had abused her and had a restraining order. I might be mangling the facts, but if there is any truth to it someone should look into it and make sure it was all proper because using a gun in defense is not a crime and throwing someone in jail for defending themselves while being black is a travesty.
#6
I can easily imagine the jurors throwing their hands in the air...
Interesting theory, junkiron. It explains why there was no follow-up to the request for more info (which was strange) and why the jury did not 'compromise' with manslaughter (which was surprising, at least to me). And I completely agree with your conclusion.
#7
@#5 I was outraged at the Marissa Alexander verdict too until I looked into it some more.
1. She was not living in the house, he was.
2. She went there, put her car in the garage, went inside got into a screaming match, allegedly said "I got something for you" went out to the car, came back and fired 2 shots into the wall at head height. Oh yes, she also claims that the garage door that had just opened refused to open when she tried to leave.
3. Warning shots are illegal in virtually every state in the country.
4. She was offered a plea that would have been guilty in exchange for time served and refused.
#8
I suspect that at the time they asked the question to the judge, they were 5 no votes and 1 uncertain on the manslaughter charge. After they got the response I wonder if the one holdout said "heck with this, I'm voting not guilty" and settled it.
Posted by: Steve White ||
07/15/2013 18:10 Comments ||
Top||
#9
adding manslaughter was a reasonable move because the 'malicious intent' component of the charge against zimmerman collapsed completely
the jury may have thought that the 'self defense' issue was different between murder 2 and manslaughter but it isn't
Posted by: lord garth ||
07/15/2013 18:10 Comments ||
Top||
#10
I'd have hung the M-F'n jury just out of principle.
Pull a new charge out of your arse after its all said and done?
I call B.S.
Some background before you start beating on your keyboard:
1. I'm a criminal defense lawyer in Florida since 1995.
2. I watched the trial. Had it on at home, in my office, in the car. I didn't watch it through updates from the morons on HLN or CNN, most of whom should be fired (more on that later).
3. I know the lawyers, on both sides, including the civil lawyers for the Martin family.
4. I did some commentary, and declined commentary on media outlets that were only trying to enrage the public.
Some intelligent discussion with other Florida lawyers in the comment thread, along with the usual bosom-heaving emoting. Well worth skimming after you read the article.
#1
Absolutely right. Starbucks needs to drop their endorsement of a particular morning show stat; I watched 10 minutes of it this morning and was 10 years dumber for it; no amount of image building is worth that.
Second, I'm outraged that this was even a deal. I can get oj, who was a famous nfl player, running for the border as big news.
The good news for the world: every attempt to influence the jury was made - intimidation from the corners of society to argueably the most powerful individual in history, a heavy leaning liberal judge with career interests, agitators in high profile, screaming mob for a guilty verdict in a show trial. In spite of all this influence Zimmerman was found not guilty according to the definitions of the law.
#2
I just realized that Zero's comment about if he had a son it would look just like Trayvon is only even close to valid if he had a son with a black woman; if he had a son with a white woman, like hs father did, he would reasonably look just like George Zimmerman.
#3
True, Glenmore, but that son would still act like T.
Thug daddy, thug son. >:-(
Posted by: Barbara ||
07/15/2013 12:48 Comments ||
Top||
#4
If you didn't see the trial, stop criticizing the verdict, it just makes you look stupid.
Amen.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
07/15/2013 14:23 Comments ||
Top||
#5
This lawyer, apart from getting some things wrong about Zimmerman having other options/not in danger of death, gets everything absolutely right.
I think the most idiotic claim was a black woman on CNN claiming that "the disregarded Jeantel for no other reason than she can't write cursive and slurs a bit". I screamed at the screen for half a minute, trying to explain to the image why she was so stupid the producers should drag her off the show.
Sadly it didn't work.
Posted by: Charles ||
07/15/2013 15:19 Comments ||
Top||
#6
1. The case was NOT 'Stand Your Ground.'
2. Martin probably should have, but was not required to, just go home.
3. Zimmerman probably should have, but was not required to, just stay in his truck.
4. Martin was not an 'innocent child', though he may not have been actively criminal at the time, and was younger.
5. Zimmerman was probably not entirely truthful in exactly what he was thinking & doing each step of the time - which is why he did not take the stand.
6. As the mature party, and a CCW licensee, Zimmerman probably should not have placed himself in a position to need his gun, though he was not legally required to do so.
7. Martin violated the first rule of gunfights - don't start one without a gun.
Questions:
a. How far from his truck was Zimmerman when he shot Martin?
b. Did Martin sucker punch Zimmerman?
Zimmerman would be not guilty of anything except poor judgement if Martin threw the first punch and was on top of Zimmerman - the evidence certainly suggests that, and that is plenty to establish 'reasonable doubt' that Zimmerman was guilty.
#7
5. Zimmerman was probably not entirely truthful in exactly what he was thinking & doing each step of the time - which is why he did not take the stand.
I thought it was SOP for a defense attorney to keep his client off the stand, except in a last resort. The reason being that a clever prosecutor can twist anyone's word's around so as to make them look shifty. If your client is so manifestly innocent that this can't happen, it should never have come to a trial.
Then again, I got my JD at the Perry Mason School of Law. Perry never put his clients on the stand.
#8
People keep talking about the mistakes Zimmermann made. He should have stayed in his truck, etc. I agree.
But no one has said this about Martin's conduct:
"No matter if you feel threatened, or if you feel outraged because you are innocent but unfairly 'profiled' because of your race, DONT JUMP ON PEOPLE AND START HITTING THEIR FACE AND SMASHING THEIR HEAD INTO THE GROUND".
It's one of the key lessons of this tragic story. But no one will say it in public. You don't have to suppport Zimmermann. But let's tell young people, even if you're being followed by a creepy person in a truck, "DONT JUMP ON PEOPLE AND START HITTING THEIR FACE AND SMASHING THEIR HEAD INTO THE GROUND".
#1
What did they actually know about that night? Almost nothing, save a few pieces of testimony largely beneficial to Zimmerman. Yet they had no problem profiling him as a homicidal racist and concocting a paranoid hate-crime theory of the case.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
07/15/2013 14:26 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Twisted a few facts and made sure that the eventual retractions were lost in the storm of nonsense they were conjuring.
I don't doubt that a decade from now a lot of folks will embarrassingly admit they knew Zimmerman was innocent in the same way blacks know OJ was probably guilty. Or that they didn't know the whole story and pin the blame on NBC for misleading.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
MIKE HUCKABEE: You have said that you thought the prosecutor ought to be disbarred, that's a pretty serious type of violation to get a person disbarred. It is that serious to you?
