A jury in the Trayvon Martin case acquitted George Zimmerman after 15 hours of deliberations, but the state should have dismissed its case before it was submitted to a jury, and outcries for federal prosecution are inappropriate under the circumstances. The state of Florida failed to prove the defendant’s guilt during its case, and based on the standard of probable cause, dismissing the case would have been the right thing to do. Now the Zimmerman case may be remembered as one of the most meritless and politically motivated prosecutions in criminal justice history — a desperate attempt by politicians to prove they were not racist by bowing to racial tensions sweeping the nation. Still, misguided liberals refuse to respect the Florida verdict, and are instead calling for federal intervention from the Obama administration. Sunday afternoon, the Associated Press reported that the Justice Department would “determine whether the evidence reveals a prosecutable violation of any of the very limited federal criminal civil rights statutes within our jurisdiction governing successive federal prosecution following a state trial.” However, legal experts have conceded this would be extremely difficult because of the high threshold of evidence required. Civil rights violations are typically reserved for abuse of power cases where officials fail to prosecute someone guilty or railroad an innocent person. But that wasn’t the case here. Mr. Zimmerman was in fact prosecuted, and found innocent. Instead of pressuring the Justice Department to prosecute a private citizen for murder charges of which he has already been cleared, critics should consider what many Americans have already accepted: that there was never a valid criminal case to begin with. Consider the evidence: A key witness called by the state who saw the confrontation between Mr. Zimmerman and Trayvon implied that Trayvon was actually the attacker. One police interrogator testified that the defendant did not appear to demonstrate ill will, hatred or spite toward the alleged victim, the elements required to secure a second-degree murder conviction. Once prosecutors realized they couldn’t prove any of those elements, they asked the judge if they could add the lesser manslaughter charge. Another detective testified that he found Mr. Zimmerman’s account credible. Ironically, the prosecution’s case sounded a lot like a defense case. Under Florida Bar Rule 3.8, prosecutors in a criminal case are required to “refrain from prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause or make timely disclosure to the defense of all evidence or information known to the prosecutor that tends to negate the guilt of the accused or mitigates the offense .” Despite this rule, when charges were originally filed, the state reportedly withheld material evidence that supported Mr. Zimmerman’s self-defense claims — photographs of his physical injuries. One day after closing arguments were finished, the state proved its vindictiveness by firing its information technology specialist after he testified about the withholding of evidence in open court. Apparently in Florida, testifying to the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth is not acceptable when a state employee’s testimony exposes wrongdoing. Florida’s special prosecutor Angela Corey said early on that it was her job was “to do justice for Trayvon Martin.” She was wrong. Read more: washingtontimes/news/2013/jul/15/the-zimmerman-prosecutors-overreach/#ixzz2Z8hzijAB Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
Posted on: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 18:20:28 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015