Miscarriage of justice

“The jury system is not perfect but it’s the best system in the world.” This statement, repeated several times after the Zimmerman verdict, may be the understatement of the year. One of the problems with our jury system is the requirement for the verdict to be unanimous. It wouldn’t have changed the outcome of the Zimmerman case, but can you imagine if decisions of the Supreme Court, Congress, voting for politicians or judging sporting events had to be unanimous? The USA would be paralyzed.

There is good reason for the type of cases that go to the Supreme Court versus Judge Judy. When issues are so complicated a jury of your peers will be ill equipped to understand and interpret all the facts.

I’m not a fan of Lisa Bloom. However, her analysis of why the prosecution failed was probably right on. They failed to drive home the most important issues. I had forgotten about Angela Corey until her press conference after the verdict. I remember when she took the case she appeared to be amused by the whole situation. During the post verdict press conference she still had the same stupid grin, like the whole case was just a joke.

I remember from the time I worked for a law firm that the judge’s instructions are all important. They can ignore the law and the facts. If you follow the instructions to the letter the verdict will be what the judge wants. I haven’t been called for jury duty and it’s unlikely I would ever be selected if I were honest with my answers; because I would use common sense and logic, which have no place in the rule of law.

The problem with this case may be just the way the laws are written. Initially the “stand your ground” law was talked about. Even after it was ruled not applicable, people were still talking about it. The common sense definition of stand your ground means you are in your home and someone attempts to assault you. There could be other places, but it should not apply to someone who is following or chasing someone. The same logic should apply to self defense. You can’t start a fight and claim self defense if you are losing.

Zimmerman’s attorneys ignored the fact that George had many options e.g. staying in his car. They also claimed that Trayvon threw the first punch. This was based on George’s version of the altercation. It was up to the prosecution to suggest that if Trayvon threw the first punch it was self defense as he was being followed by an adult stranger and George may have pushed him and called him a F..... N........

The defense attorneys should have been held in contempt for arguing with the judge after a ruling. After winning the case they were still whining about not getting evidence fast enough, as if that would have made any difference. O’Mara and West are now in good company with Bailey, Cochran and Dershowitz for getting a guilty person acquitted. Alan Dershowitz put his two cents in on the Zimmerman trial when it looked, for a moment, like a guilty person may actually be convicted.

According to Sherman’s law there were only a few facts which mattered – Zimmerman was on neighbor watch. The neighbor watch means to watch and report to the police. Although Zimmy may have a right to carry a gun, vigilantes carry guns, and neighbor watch people only need their eyes and a cell phone. The police told him not to follow and I’m assuming they were not sending a patrol car as they were used to his crank calls. Whatever Trayvon did was justified as he was doing nothing wrong and being harassed by a stranger. Both the defense and prosecution dwelled on irrelevant facts such as who was yelling on the 911 call, Trayvon’s friend didn’t think cracker was a racial term (it’s not), or who threw the first punch. 

Although I believe the jurors came to the wrong conclusion, I’ll give them the benefit of doubt and assume they made a conscious effort to interpret confusing laws. They were still however, free to use some common sense and do the right thing. Even in the military a soldier is not required to follow orders which are illegal or immoral.