As Eric writes in the Jeantel article, there's a pattern in the Zimmerman case that in any other case, "liberally inclined" persons would recognize as a recipe for a wrongful conviction:
- High profile crime
- Sympathetic victim
- Unsympathetic defendant
- Evidence suggesting innocence or doubt minimized or explained away with farfetched theories.
- Evidence suggesting guilt magnified and then stitched together with conjecture, surmise and supposition.
What the state is selling contravenes the most basic principles of our criminal justice system and the Bill of Rights. As Eric writes, it boils down to this:
This was a strange, sad and confrontation that had a tragic outcome. Since you can't be sure what happened because these evolving, contradictory stories don't resolve into a clear narrative and are sometimes at odds with the known facts, you can't be sure that Zimmerman acted in self defense therefore you should find him guilty.
After a week of trial, I think the state has yet to produce reliable testimony to rebut Zimmerman's claim of self-defense. The testimony of several of its witnesses support Zimmerman's claim, as is evident from the state's attempt to impeach its own witnesses. All it seems to have is its theory, which is not proof, let alone proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Criminal trials are not designed to get to the truth of what happened. The purpose of a criminal trial is to test the state's evidence: Has the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Since this is a self-defense case, the state must disprove Zimmerman's claim of self-defense by proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
No doubt next week the state will introduce George Zimmerman's statements and claim that minor variations are not only differences, but intentional lies. That's a theory, not proof. And it is a theory that is unlikely to carry the day for the state once the defense presents its evidence, or even if it chooses to forego presenting evidence and merely argue in closing, that minor variations are to be expected when recounting a traumatic experience, and it would be suspect if a person's recounts the experience exactly the same way each time.
Politics and personal views on social injustice drawn from other cases have no place in this trial. For any verdict in the Zimmerman trial to be viewed with integrity, it must be one based only on the testimony and evidence presented in court.
At least the jury is sequestered and unable to read, watch and listen to those who succumbed to the Martin family lawyers' public relations campaign early on and who continue to view the case through guilt-infused lenses.
I am not expecting a guilty verdict. I think the defense did an excellent job in choosing at least five of the six jurors, and that they will make a decision based on the evidence and the court's instructions on the law. I have doubts as to whether the second degree murder charge will even make it to the jury, despite the judge's pro-prosecution rulings to date. So far, the evidence seems woefully lacking to me.
In related case-news, I have spent the day reading new discovery the state made available to the media this week. It includes FBI transcripts of the 911 calls and Zimmerman's call, color versions with clear photos of the lab reports, gunshot wound and clothing, videos from Sam's Club, the Lakes Edge Apartments and Kohls, and revised versions of various items previously provided. I may not have much more to say before Monday.
Please read our comment rules for the site, and our comment policy for the Zimmerman case. While all points of view are allowed, comments that violate our rules are deleted when called to my attention. I've tried to delete the recent objectionable comments with personal attacks on anyone in the case and those with demonstrably incorrect statements on the facts of the case, but it's been slow going. There are a lot of comments and only so many hours in the day.
Complaints that TalkLeft allows only one point of view are misguided. The limits are in terms of how those views are expressed. Comments must be on topic. Opinions must be expressed as such, and not as undisputed truth. Racial and other personal attacks against anyone are not allowed, including those involved in the case, witnesses, family members, lawyers, other commenters here, me or Talkleft. Profanity is not allowed (use an asterisk as a substitute for some letters) and urls must be in html format because long ones skew the site. We have narrow margins.
Comment with long urls will be deleted. If you can't figure out how to do that, at least get a short url at tinyurl.com. Preview your comment to make sure you did it right. If you spent a lot of time on your comment, save it on your own computer in case it gets deleted. My intention is not to deprive you of your work, only to ensure objectionable comments and those that falsely portray the facts are not associated with this site through search engines or quotes on other sites.
Also making news this weekend, the re-emergence of Trayvon Martin's stepmother, Alicia Martin, who doesn't want to be kept in the shadows any longer. (She complained about this over a year ago, but was back on Anderson Cooper this weekend. See Ann Althouse for a recap. Here is the video of part 2 of her interview, which is by far the most dramatic and compelling. I don't think she is either acting or hamming it up. It's how she feels, justified or not. There are plenty of other sites discussing the Martin family dynamics. Even though I think the shutting out of Alicia Martin was an intentional strategy of the public relations campaign, I don't intend to write much if anything about it, unless the state calls witnesses who put the dynamics in play.
This thread is open to all facets of the George Zimmerman legal proceedings, which includes media coverage and the role of public relations campaigns. Like this one (start at 30 seconds in.) Or this one, in which Benjamin Crump is quoted as saying "We believe Trayvon Martin is dead today because he was racially profiled." (Article here.)
