Trayvon Martin: The Court of Public Opinion

I usually do not become overly involved in cases tried in the court of public opinion.  However, for many personal reasons, I followed the State of Florida v. Zimmerman from the very beginning.  Last year, I wrote a blogpost titled Trayvon Martin: Why There May Be No  Peace in Sanford, Florida (http://thegentreport.blogspot.com/2012/03/trayvon-martin-why-there-may-be-no.html?spref=tw).   At that time, I wondered why it took the authorities days before finally making an arrest in the case, despite knowing two things: (1) Trayvon Martin was dead; and (2) George Zimmerman admitted to killing him.  Why did grassroots organizers need to secure 2.2 million signatures from concerned citizens before Zimmerman was charged and arrested?  Some of the early occurrences in the case did not make a lot of sense to me.  Finally, over a year later, the case was set to be tried and millions of people followed the court proceedings.  The case forced many people to revisit past discussions regarding race, discrimination and gun laws.  

The Charges and Defenses

George Zimmerman was charged with two crimes:(1) second-degree murder; and (2) manslaughter.  

Second-degree murder, as defined by Florida Statutes is, "the unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, although without premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual.  In English, that means that the State needed to prove that Zimmerman killed Trayvon by engaging in behavior where he showed no regard for human life.  The State did not need to prove premeditation, however.   

Manslaughter, which is a lesser crime, is defined as the killing of a human being by the act, procurement, or culpable negligence of another without lawful justification.  In English, this means that the State had to prove that Trayvon Martin is dead and that Zimmerman killed him without legal justification.  

Both of these crimes are excusable if the jury finds that Zimmerman acted with lawful justification (essentially self defense).  Florida defines two kinds of defenses.  However, we will focus on justifiable homicide, as I believe that is what the jury ultimately concluded when finding that Zimmerman was not guilty.  

Justifiable homicide provides that "the use of deadly force is justifiable when a person resisting any attempt to murder such person or commit a felony upon him . . . "  Essentially, for the jury to reach this conclusion, they would need to find that Trayvon Martin tried to kill Zimmerman or commit another felony against him and Zimmerman's reasonable reaction led to him using deadly force to protect himself.  

 

Beyond a Reasonable Doubt

Many people have opinions regarding this case.  However, I think it is very important for individuals to understand the charges, defenses and burden of proof that is considered in a criminal case.  In civil court, the burden of proof for the injured party is beyond the preponderance of the evidence, or "more likely than not."  That basically means that if the jury determines that a defendant is liable for injuring a party, they only have to be about 51% sure.  If they are 51% sure, the injured party should win the case.

Conversely, in a criminal matter, the burden of proof is much higher.  The reasonable doubt standard is necessary because criminal defendants are on trial for their liberty in many cases.  If a jury has a reasonable doubt as to the defendant's guilt, the jury should pronounce the defendant not guilty.  Conversely, if the jury has no doubt as to the defendant's guilt, or if their only doubt is unreasonable, then the prosecutor has proven the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the defendant should be pronounced guilty.

Obviously in this case, the jury found that the State did not carry its burden and they found a reasonable doubt as to Zimmerman's guilt, so he was acquitted.

Jury Selection  

I personally find it rather odd that the jury was comprised of 6 women.  However, I realize that attorneys for both sides had an equal opportunity to challenge the jury pool, and I am assuming they did so.  I am not a jury selection expert at all, but logic seems to dictate that a more diverse jury panel would have made some sense.  Also, I understand that 6 jurors is proper and meets Constitutional muster, but I believe in murder cases, 12 jurors should always be the rule.  I digress.

Trial

This case was tried in the court of public opinion many times over because so many people felt personally connected to the facts of the case.  The problem with these kinds of trials is that media outlets, social media "attorneys" and everyone has an opinion that is often times not based on the factors that will be considered by the court.  Convictions in our judicial system are supposed to be based on what can be proven in court, and not by what someone thinks happened.  In criminal cases, the defendant does not have a burden of proof because he is presumed innocent until proven guilty.  If you apply that standard to this case it simply means that George Zimmerman did not have to prove anything.  The prosecution had the burden of proof and they were charged with presenting evidence in the courtroom to the jury.

Jury Deliberation

The jury in this case was sequestered during the trial.  Sequestration basically means the jurors were isolated from the outside world during the trial.  They were unable to read newspapers, or browse the internet or even to have unsupervised communications with their families.  The purpose of sequestration is to shield the jurors from any biases that could impact their decision. They are to make their decision based solely on the evidence presented during trial.  

The jurors returned a verdict of not guilty.  This verdict shocked many people.  The public does not know how the jurors reached their verdict.  If I was a betting man, I would say that they concluded, based on the evidence presented, that the prosecution failed to prove that Zimmerman committed second-degree murder or manslaughter beyond a reasonable doubt.  In the alternative, I believe the jurors found that Zimmerman's actions were justified, and therefore acquittal was proper.  Regardless of how you feel personally about the verdict, Zimmerman is now a "free" man. 

What's Next

The Martin family is the loser in this case.  They lost their son, who can never be brought back to this world.  And, the man who killed him is free to roam the streets and live his  life.  That does not sit well with me, but he was found not guilty in the court of law.  I anticipate that the Martin family will file  civil charges against Zimmerman for wrongful death.  In civil court, the family would be trying to sue Zimmerman and collect monetary benefits to "make them whole."  Obviously, the Martin family can never be made whole because their son is dead; nevertheless, that is the goal.  As previously mentioned, the burden of proof is a lot less stringent and I would not be surprised if they are successful in civil court.

The NAACP released a statement following the verdict and promised to continue urging the Federal Government to proceed with civil rights charges against Zimmerman.  I think this case has the potential to rejuvenate legal issues and moral questions that have been ignored for far too long.  In short, you have not heard the last of the parties involved in the case.

Peace.