I'm not one to go for wild theories. Not my bag. However this theory isn't coming from me, apparently it's coming from a set of legal experts based on a new article from Alternet.org.
Florida law enforcement, from the local police to the special prosecutor overseeing the Trayvon Martin case, did not want to see George Zimmerman convicted of murder and deliberately threw away the case, allowing their prosecution to crumble. A growing chorus of attorneys and analysts who know jury trials and courtroom procedure say this is the inescapable conclusion to be drawn from the parade of otherwise incoherent missteps by George Zimmerman’s prosecutors.
“I find it personally difficult to believe it was not thrown,” said Warren Ingber, a New York-based attorney who has practiced law for decades. “I am far from alone in this assessment, and it reveals even harder truth why this case was a miscarriage of justice.”
Perhaps the near giddy way that Prosecutor Angela Corey responded to the aftermath of their cases defeat is one of the factors fueling this view. I admit it did seem odd.
Now maybe Angela Corey is a really likable and personable and she just happens to smile big during all her press conferences right after she loses a Murder case. I'm sure that's exactly the best way to honor and respect the still grieving parents for their dead son. Maybe that's her brand of Southern Hospitality with the Press. Or maybe this case actually stinks to high heavy, was tanked by the Prosecutors, had a stacked deck of a Jury and really was our Centuries first Emmet Till.
Some of the Mr. Ingber arguements included:
1. There was enough evidence to convict, despite biased police work. That assessment “is itself a miracle,” Ingber wrote, citing how the Sanford, Florida police handled the killing. “Martin’s body lay in the morgue as a John Doe for three days while his mother was asking for his whereabouts. His cell phone records indicated he was on the phone as he was being killed. The person he was on with had no idea where he was. Meanwhile his admitted killer was on the loose and allowed to produce exculpatory evidence while crime scene evidence was deteriorating. It appears from videos of Zimmerman ‘strolling’ into custody that he was not that badly hurt.
2. The governor’s handpicked prosecutor enters with an agenda. “No account of this trial is complete if it does not start with how the deck was stacked before the trial took place,” Ingber said. “But it continues in the identity of the person that Florida’s [Republican] Gov. Rick Scott selected to prosecute the case: Angela Corey, the prosecutor who sentenced Marissa Alexander [a black woman] to 20 years for firing a gun into the air in her own garage in defense against a convicted abuser of women.
Yes, it is curious that Angela Corey was able successfully prosecute Marissa Alexander for a
celiing shooting even after the defendant asserted she was "Standing Her Ground" against a person who had attacked her previously and against which she had a
current restraining order, but wasn't able to bring a conviction in this case.
Now if only that ceiling had only been wearing a Hoodie, Marissa would be a free woman today.
Ingber and Deberry of the Times-Picuyune go on to site some very obvious examples. How the jury was mishandled, particular Juror B-37 who was still seated after saying at least twice that there were "riots" over the Sanford case and that she didn't trust the "Mainstream Media" showing considerable pre-trial bias.[Prosec. had apparently run out of preemptive strikes] How the prosecution failed to bother to mention that Rachel Jeantel speech difficulties come largely from an under bite, a medical condition should would need surgery and year of recovery to correct. They also didn't bother to mention that cursive is no longer taught as part of the curricula of many schools.
Besides, nobody sends texts or tweets in cursive. It's becoming a lost art.
“Why was the jury’s prejudices given free rein to suppose, as the entire nation did, that Rachel Jeantel was stupid because of her speech when she has an underbite that will require surgery that she is putting off?” Ingber explained.
Defense witnesses were able to defy their required sequestration, and sit
right next to the defense table without the prosecution bringing it up and have them excluded. Jurors were allowed to seemingly violate
their sequestration and interact with family members [although this is allowed as long as they do not discuss the case], including Juror B-37 and her attorney husband who was able to land and sign her
a book deal with a literary agent immediately after the end of deliberations.
There was the colossal blunder of playing all the tapes of Zimmerman's own self-serving statements to the police, effectively introducing nearly all the defense case for them without being able to cross-examine and question Zimmerman and his story on the stand. After that they were playing "catch up" to whose story is more compelling and they didn't have a complete story to tell! just bits and pieces of one.
And then there was the confusing state of the Jury Instructions
The Florida law deciding this case is abysmal, Ingber said, noting that this added to the jury’s confusion during deliberations, and in getting the charge from the judge. “ Try reading the instructions. Really try. I did,” he wrote. “I am an attorney and thought I knew what the elements of manslaughter were until I read this. Anyone who can parse this—in written form, never mind by ear—qualifies for a Supreme Court nomination.”
But it not just this one particular potential curmudgeon who says this case could have and should have been won. It's quite a few others.
10. Florida wanted to get rid of the case, not win it. The Times-Picayune’s DeBerry said his ex-prosecutor source “said he’s polled about 20 prosecutors in New Orleans, and though all aren’t sure that they would have been able to get Zimmerman convicted as charged, each of them is convinced that he or she could have gotten more than an acquittal. It was a clear case of tanking, he argued: ‘They didn’t want to win this case.’”
There's also this from the Orlando Sentinel.
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/...
"I think they're throwing the case," attorney Mark Geragos announced Tuesday night on Anderson Cooper's CNN show, "Self-Defense or Murder?" The discussion on that program, which airs at 10 weeknights, is fascinating. This special Cooper series is running for just the duration of the trial, but it certainly is one of the strongest programs in cable news these days.
Fellow analyst Jeffrey Toobin called Geragos' throw-the-case comment "absurd."
But Geragos had ranted about the performance of Dr. Valerie Rao, a medical examiner for the prosecution. "This woman is abysmal," Geragos said. "She's like the worst defense expert normally that you would get, and somehow the prosecution thinks this is helpful?"
Many failures by the prosecution have been pointed out. They failed to argue a
coherent vision of the case. If George Zimmerman's story isn't what happened, exactly what did happen? Did Zimmerman Grab Trayvon, prompting both the fight and preventing any injuries to Trayvon (as
I wondered) and as
Rachel Jeantel surmissed (but
wasn't even asked about on the stand by the Prosecutors?) Physical evidence cooberrating this view such as yanked drawstring on Trayvon's Hoodie, which would have indicated that someone was
Holding Onto Him while he tried to back away.
The Prosecutors failed to provide an expert witness to back of their own theory that Zimmerman's story of how he pulled out the gun wasn't possible if Trayvon was sitting on top of him and the gun was behind his right hip, under both of them and blocked by Trayvon's left leg.
During closing they argued that the only way Zimmerman could have reached his gun was if Trayvon Had Gotten UP or - as previously mentioned - was backing away. They provided no witnesses who could verify this view and unfortunately a prosecutors argument during closing, isn't evidence.
In addition to this there is also the the view that this case failed because the prosecutors were unable, or unwilling, to make a compelling case that the Initial Aggressor doctrine should have applied and been included in the jury instruction. Defense argued that this didn't apply under a Florida Appeals court decision on Gibbs v State. http://www.policymic.com/...
The reason why the defendant's conviction was reversed in Gibbs v. State was because the error lay in the delivery of the initial aggressor instruction (construed overly broadly), not the simple delivery of the instruction itself. As Burke notes, "A properly instructed jury should have heard the complete law of self-defense in Florida, not just the portions that helped Zimmerman. Had the jury been instructed about the initial aggressor exception, it might have concluded that Zimmerman's following of Martin, though itself not criminal, was reasonably apprehended by Martin as a 'threat of force.' Put another way, the jury might have concluded that Martin was the one acting in self-defense during the physical confrontation that preceded the gunshot, making Zimmerman the aggressor."
Unfortunately, the Judge sided with the Defense on this and this instruction was not included. Nor were - to my mind - a full and completely description of Manslaughter, both Voluntary and Involuntary.
When a homicide, the killing of a human being, does not meet the legal definition of murder, Florida state laws allow a prosecutor to consider a manslaughter charge. The state establishes two types of manslaughter: voluntary and involuntary. While voluntary manslaughter describes an intentional act performed during a provocation or heat of passion, involuntary manslaughter does not require an intent to kill or even an intent to perform that act resulting in the victim's death.
To establish involuntary manslaughter, the prosecutor must show that the defendant acted with "culpable negligence." Florida statutes define culpable negligence as a disregard for human life while engaging in wanton or reckless behavior. The state may be able to prove involuntary manslaughter by showing the defendant's recklessness or lack of care when handling a dangerous instrument or weapon, or while engaging in a range of other activities that could lead to death if performed recklessly.
- See more at: http://statelaws.findlaw.com/...
Getting out of the car and initially chasing after Martin, then
failing to return to the car - allowing the confrontation to occur while armed and his weapon could have been taken , not to mention
grabbing and holding Martin enough to pull out his left drawstring - should have met that second criteria of "recklessness", but even though Manslaughter was included as a lesser charge, this option was not in the jury instructions as shown by Juror B-39 who repeatedly said she "couldn't find that Zimmerman
intended" to Kill Trayvon which is the requirement of
Voluntary Manslaughter, not Involuntary.
The Jury even sent a question to the Judge to clarify the meaning of Manslaughter and received - No Response.
Combine Involuntary Manslaughter with Initial Aggressor (which removes self-defense for Zimmerman), the evidence that Trayvon was grabbed and pulled explaining how the fight started and how Zimmerman came to be injured and battered while Trayvon was not and then the physical impossibility of his pulling the gun out from under him with Trayvon sitting on top and you have Conviction. Failing all of these, you have what we have now; Finger-pointing and frustration.
So the question remains are all these extreme missteps merely coincidence or do they show a deliberate lack of desire in winning this case? The argument coming from conservatives was always that this case was only brought for reasons of appeasement, to mollify an angered Black Populace with all their "Rioting" and provide them with a Politically Correct Show Trial since as we all know Zimmerman was not arrested or charged at all until 41 days after the initial event.
If that could be true, why exactly would a group of people with a political agenda be willing to stage such a show trial also be willing to WIN that trial if they didn't truly believe in it, or didn't truly want to win?
I don't know the correct answer to that question, but it is interesting that it's not just crackpots, it's not just Mark Geragos, but many other experienced prosecutors who are beginning to ask it and consider it seriously. Even they don't think these guys were truly that inept.
Then again it can be just our own attempt to make senseless things make sense. A neat little conspiracy of ineptitude would answer exactly why the Prosecutors weren't willing to bring charges, then they were, then they botched the job, and then at the end smile about it. Or this could simply a cased of arm-chair prosecuting run amok. But even failing those possibilities, it's always possible that this Prosecution team just plain sucked.
Whether the incompetence was by design or by providence, Justice was not found in this court.
Vyan
While you're pondering that Join Color of Change Campaign to Repeal Stand Your Ground Laws and get your asses Registered to Vote [Share the QR below], check out the Dreamdefenders.org and BlackYouthProject.com because at a certain point we have to start seriously thinking and acting on what happens #AfterTrayvon
8:56 AM PT: Several problems in the original Alternet piece have been noted by commenters such as the claim that Trayvon's body sat in the morge for 3 days unclaimed and that his cell records "indicate he was one the phone while being killed". Technically it was only a day, and he was on the phone up until about 1 min before his death. I've updated to reflect some of these issues. My own bottom line view, at least as of today, is that there isn't conclusive proof to confirm this "tanking" idea. RIght now it's Ingber, Geragos and Deberry (with coorberation with some other prosecutors) who seem to support it. I have my doubts.
Alternet attempts to make the case that it was thrown. I'm not convinced they succeed, but I do believe it's worth thinking about.
Is it a CT?
I'm open to deleting re-writing if needed.
10:17 AM PT: Ok, well there is yet another possibility which was brought up by this commenter and that is that otherwise competent Prosecutors can fail on a case simply because their Hearts aren't in it. They're honestly trying to win, but they don't have a passion for it and don't truly believe in the case.
This is of course, unprovable because it requires seeing into the hearts and emotions of the key prosecutors such a De La Rionda & John Guy, but it does make some sense. It may not have been incompetence or a deliberate plot to fail, but the end result may have been the same against a more inspired and highly motivated defense.
In other words, they GOT Beat by a better more energized team. Just like the "tanking theory" this can't be proven, but it makes as much sense as anything else.
10:33 AM PT: Changed the title to "Throw the Case or Blow It?" to reflect more of the skeptism coming from various commenters and take this another step away from CT. I'm not advocating one particular idea here, but the fact that this case went so far south so badly, deserves to be discussed.