George Zimmerman, Back In the News: Are We Really Surprised?

It isn't as if George Zimmerman has shown the best judgment throughout his notariety.  If he made good choices, he wouldn't have found himself in the situation that resulted in Trayvon Martin's death. If he made good choices, Zimmerman wouldn't have been trying to deceive the trial court with his clandestine phone calls with wife Shellie regarding "Peter Pan."

It was bad enough that after his acquittal, Zimmerman visited the factory that manufactured guns like the one he killed Trayvon with and had himself photographed smiling in the factory. But are we now really surprised that a 911 call made by Shellie Zimmerman claimed Zimmerman threatened to pull his gun on his estranged wife and her father? It is only a matter of time before Zimmerman makes another poor choice that either lands him in jail or results in his death or the unnecessary death of another person.

 Share

An Analysis of George Zimmerman's Not Guilty Verdict

Many were shocked when it was announced that a jury of six women found George Zimmerman not guilty of all charges associated with the death of Trayvon Martin.  However, it must be remembered that the jury had to follow the letter of the law in deciding Zimmerman's fate.  At least one juror has come out publicly and stated that although she believed Zimmerman "got away with murder," that because she had to follow what the law stated, she was duty bound to find Zimmerman not guilty.

To say that Zimmerman "got away with murder" but was not guilty is a confusing statement to make. So what exactly was Zimmerman charged with, and how could the jury find him not guilty? First, the actual letter of the law in Florida, in pertinent parts, is laid out here, so the exact standards by which Zimmerman was being prosecuted can be undersood.

From the very beginning, Zimmerman admitted killing Trayvon.  But Zimmerman claims the killing was in self-defense, or in legal terms was “excusable” or “justified.”  These terms are legal terms of art that mean that a perpetrator will not be punished for an act that on its face is a crime if there is a good legal reason for its commission, such as self-defense or reasonable mistake.  Essentially, a homicide is not a crime if it is justified or excused.  Zimmerman's defense team ultimately declined to invoke the controversial stand your ground Florida law and thus did not seek to gain immunity from prosecution and civil suit.  (Fla. Stat. 776.032).

The DA charged Zimmerman with second degree murder and the lesser included charge of manslaughter. At the close of evidence, the prosecution asked the judge to allow the jurors to consider third degree murder on the basis of child abuse.

The crux of the proof necessary for the charge of second degree murder (punishable up to life in prison), boils down to the commission of an "imminently dangerous" act "evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life."  Premeditation is not necessary.  Under Florida law, in order to prove that Zimmerman had a "depraved mind" the prosecution had to present evidence that he acted with "ill will, hatred, spite or evil intent."  See Leasure v. State, 105 So. 2d 5 (Fla. App. 2012).

In order to prove manslaughter (punishable up to 15 years in prison), the prosecution had to present evidence that Zimmerman committed an intentional act that caused Trayvon's death.  See Haygood v. State, 109 So. 2d. 735 (Fla. 2013).  But if there is evidence for a legally sufficient excuse or justification, no crime was committed.  Loosely speaking, the crux here is whether Zimmerman honestly and reasonably feared for his life at the time he pulled the trigger; in other words, whether Zimmerman's actions were reasonable given the circumstances. In deliberating, the jurors have to engage in Monday night quarterbacking.

The evidence that was presented in this case makes it a close call.  There was certainly enough evidence to put Zimmerman on trial for the death of Trayvon, but the jury had a tough job.  In my opinion, the most important result of this case is opening the national dialogue about the assumptions that are routinely and all too often unjustifiably made about young black men in general.

At the end of the day, whether Zimmerman committed a crime under Florida law was a close call. Perhaps the prosecutors didn't present their case well enough, perhaps the police did not gather enough evidence, or perhaps the jurors were not well-instructed on the law. I do believe it was a mistake for the prosecution to argue Zimmerman was a vigilante, purposefully acting as judge, juror and executioner.  Either way, whether the evidence was enough to convict was ultimately up to the jury.

 Share

OJ Simpson's Chances For A New Trial

OJ Simpson's bid to get a new trial in his Nevada convictions for 19 various felony counts ranging from kidnapping, assault, robbery and the use of a deadly weapon, resulted in a five-day evidentiary hearing from May 13 to May 17, 2013, last week.  Simpson's Petition was filed with the Clark County District Court over a year ago on May 12, 2012.  Various witnesses testified, including Simpson himself, a first in any of his criminal prosecutions, and Simpson's trial attorney, Yale Galanter, whom Simpson claims was ineffective at trial, entitling Simpson to a new trial.  At the evidentiary hearing, Galanter passionately denied any error or omission on his part during Simpson's trial.

Simpson's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is not uncommon when convicted criminal defendants have exhausted all their appeals as of right.  The claim is filed in the form of a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus and is based on an allegation that the petitioner's Sixth Amendement Constitutional right to assistance of counsel was violated and thus unvalidates the petitioner's conviction.  The petition must first be filed in the trial court.  The standard for showing ineffective assistance of counsel rising to a level that violates a defendant's constitutional rights to such a degree that would require a defendant to obtain a new trial is set forth in the 1984 United States Supreme Court decision of Strickland v. Washington, as adopted by the Nevada Supreme Court.in the case entitled Warden v. Lyons.

Under the Strickland standard, in order to establish a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel sufficient  to invalidate a judgement of conviciton, Simpson is required to denonstrate (1) that his counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and (2) that his counsel's errors were so severe that they rendered the jury's verdict unreliable.  The Nevada Supreme Court has held that the severity of the errors must have prejudiced the defendant to such a degree that but for the errors, the verdict would probably have been differenct.  According to Nevada case law, in deciding the petition the trial court need not address both components of the inquiry if Simpson makes an insufficient showing on either one.

The Strickland test is a high bar for a convicted defendant to overcome, and in Nevada, defendants' petitions have been denied even in cases where trial counsel admitted to embezzling large amounts of their clients' money, and in cases where a juror subsequently provided an affidavit indicating he witnessed the defendant's trial counsel sleeping during the trial.  Statistically speaking, it is not likely that Simpson's petition will be granted, so we may see an appeal before the Nevada Supreme Court in the future.

Share

Beware of Fraudulent Solicitations to Help Boston

The Attorney General of Massacusets has issued a media release warning the public to be wary of solicitations for donations to help the victims of the Boston marathon bombing.
To read the AG's letter, click here.

 Share

Ninth Circuit Takes Up Unique Nevada Voting Law

Today, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal heard oral argument regarding the constitutionality of a voting law unique to Nevada.  Nevada voters may choose to cast their ballot for "none of these candidates" in elections, though the choice cannot "win" the election.

The law has been on the books since the 1970's and was challenged last year by the Republican party as being unconstitutional. The Ninth Circuit blocked a ruling by United States District Court judge Hon. Robert Jones siding with the Republican party, allowing the ballot choice to go forward for the 2012 national election. Oral agrument took place this morning before a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit.

Share

Lawsuit Alleges George Zimmerman's Planned "Escape"

On December 21, 2012, a civil lawsuit was initiated by CMR Associates, Inc., against George and Shellie Zimmerman alleging breach of contract.
The Orland Sentinel reports that the lawsuit is seeking payment in the amount of $27,000 for protection services allegedly rendered.  According to the Orange Sentinel, the lawsuit also alleges an elaborate plan, cloak and dagger style, to whisk away and hide George Zimmerman from the public, including changing vehicles and clothes, and checking for GPS devices to throw off any surveillance by paparazzi or the public.
 Share

A Plea to the Media in Light of the Newtown, Connecticut Tragedy

 Like so many of you this week, my heart is broken. The news of the terrible events from Friday that occurred at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut have hit me hard. I cannot watch the news without openly crying, and I have yet to hug my own kids as they are away from me this weekend. There are simply no words to describe how any of us feel right now, except perhaps, incredulity as to the reason why this happened.

Ever since CNN set the standard during Desert Storm, the media gold standard has been to report the news as it is occurring. As you are all painfully aware, every media organization is on location reporting the details as they become known. This is the second most violent act of its kind, second only to the Virginia Tech mass shooting in April 2007. One question resonates regardless of which news team or which witness is being interviewed: Why? The shooter's actions, life, friends and family are being scrutinized to find the answer to that question on all our minds.

But, really, does it matter what the answer is? Does it matter why he did this? Is there any reason that could be uncovered that would make this tragedy any more bearable or less painful or any easier for our nation or the rest of the world watching to understand? No, there is not. It wouldn't matter if he was bullied as a child, or if his mother was a monster, or if he was mentally ill. So why bother ask the question?

It is human nature to try to understand, and it is what we do in the wake of a crisis like this one. So of course we ask the question and seek as much information and details as we can. But the shooter does not DESERVE our inquiry. He does not deserve our consideration that he had any reason, no matter how twisted, to commit this horendous act. He does not even deserve his NAME being mentioned or his face being shown, not by any of us, and not by the media.

My plea today, my request to the media is this: Make a conscious choice not to highlight who the people are who choose these evil acts. Report the details, but choose not to report the name, or show the face of anyone who chooses these acts. I can't help but believe that these shooters who do these horrible things do so not only knowing they will not come out of it alive, but also believing they will live on in infamy. Granted, I am no psychologist, but I believe the publicity only encourages the next nut job to carry out his insane fantasies. Let's make the choice as a society to stop giving them this immortality through infamy. Frankly, as much as I want to know the answer to "why," it is not worth giving the shooter what he sought.

ABC, CBS. CNN. NBC, FOX, and all other media outlets, PLEASE stop mentioning these people's names and showing their faces.

Share

The Oklahoma Supreme Court Should Have Read This Blog

Apparently irritated at the Oklahoma Supreme Court, the United States Supreme Court today summarily reversed the Oklahoma Supreme Court decision incorrectly ruling that an arbitrator, rather than the court, must decide whether an arbitration clause in an employment contract was valid.  See this blog's report of the United States Supreme Court's prior decision on this issue here. 

 Share

Mitt Romney’s “Binders Full of Women”: Why This Intended Boast Was Just Offensive

As have many, I have also found myself thinking a lot about Presidential candidate Mitt Romney's "binders full of women" remark  made during the Presidential debate this Tuesday, October 16, 2012.  Besides the reportedly  inherent inaccuracies of his statement, not to mention its characteristically “inelegant” nature, Romney’s remark has been bothering me on a more fundamental level.

 

The remark was in response to a question from a woman who asked Romney how he would "rectify the inequalities in the workplace" between men and women, specifically the 72 percent that women make of what men make for equal work.  Not only was his answer non-responsive to her specific question, it appeared to show an opposite belief on Romney’s part that women are actually incapable of equal work to men in high level positions.  Apparently, according to Romney, concessions must be made.

Romney’s answer potentially reveals three inaccurate, and, frankly, archaic beliefs.  First:  All women qualified to hold high level positions either have children they must take care of, or they would rather be a caretaker/homemaker than hold a high level position.  Neither is an absolute:  A) not all women have children—some choose a career over having children; B) last time I checked a biology textbook, it takes a man to have a child, so there are a lot of men in high level positions that have children too, so the need or desire for a flexible work schedule is not uniquely a female issue; and C) some women qualified for high level positions who have children also have partners (husbands or wives) who take on the primary childrearing and homemaking responsibilities, thus obviating the need for or want of a flexible work schedule. 

Second:  No men qualified to hold high level positions would ever want or need a flexible work schedule because they either do not have children or they have wives.  See B and C above; and D) the assumption that between a father and mother that only the mother wants or needs a flexible work schedule to care for school-aged children is a tired assumption, and it is high time fathers are given the opportunities for a flexible work schedule in order to spend more time with their children and/or step up to the plate to take on more of that role. 

Third:  Women are simply not interested in holding high level positions, so it takes a man (like Romney) to coax them into the position by promising flexible work schedules.  See A - D above.

Romney’s nonresponsive answer gives rise to more questions than it does to answer the woman’s question.  For instance, did the women Romney hire take a salary cut for their flexible work schedule?  Was the flexible work schedule offered equally to men and women in Romney’s cabinet?  Did they have the same opportunities for advancement while on a flexible work schedule as the men? Were they given fewer chances for real responsibility just because they were on a flexible work schedule? Whenever there is a discussion of women doing equal work for equal pay, or the (very real) glass ceiling in the private sector, inevitably the conversation goes right to women’s childrearing/homemaking responsibilities.  Although both issues do overlap in some places, the two are not inextricably tied together. 

Receiving equal pay for equal work has nothing to do with whether a woman has children, because men have children too.  Pay should be based on ability, not one’s lack of a uterus.  And while a flexible work schedule is certainly a welcome alternative, it should not be something offered to, or utilized by, only women.  There are plenty of really smart, qualified men who also want an opportunity to play a larger role in their children’s lives (Mitt even advocated “the benefit of having two parents in the home” during the debate), just as there are plenty of really smart, qualified women who should not only be offered the high level job, but who should receive the same pay as their male counterparts.

Apparently, Mitt did not, as he boasted, learn “a great deal” when he staffed his gubernatorial cabinet

Share

Are Republicans Intentionally Disenfranchising Obama Supporters?

As election day approaches, the courts are tackling various challenges to voter laws.  Joining the recent decision by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court is the United States Supreme Court.

Yesterday,  Monday October 15, 2012, the United States Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal from the Ninth Circuit's April 12, 2012 decision to strike down Arizona's Proposition 200 requiring voters to provide proof of citizenship in order to register to vote. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal stated that under the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), the states must "accept and use" the federal form to register to vote, which requires prospective voters to swear or affirm by their signature that they are a citizen of the United States.  The Arizona law sought to require prosepective voters to produce proof of citizenship in order to register.  The Ninth Circuit upheld Proposition 200's provision requiring voters to provide identification at the poll, but stated that the NVRA supercedes the requirement to provide proof of citizenship with the use of the NVRA voter registration form.  The Court will not hear oral argument in this case until after the election, in early 2013.

In another voters' rights case, the Supreme Court today declined to stay a decision of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeal affirming an injunction by the lower court preventing the 2011 revisions to Ohio Rev. Code s. 3509.03 from taking effect to stop voters from casting early ballots during the three days before the November 2012 general election.  The Sixth Circuit held that the revisions to the statute were unconstitutional and blocked the revisions from taking effect.  The state of Ohio applied to the Supreme Court for a stay of the injunction "pending the filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari."  The Supreme Court stated simply in its order, "The application for stay presented to Justice Kagan, and by her referred to the Court is denied."  It remains to be seen if the Supreme Court will ultimately grant certiorari to the State of Ohio, but this will also be decided after the November election.

If anything, this flurry of appellate activity surrounding voters' rights is an indication of just how close this election is expected to be.  Every vote counts, and it appears the Republican strategy is to disenfranchise the citizens who are most likely to be a vote for Obama.  If this sounds harsh or overstated, take a look at the words of Rep. Daryl Metcalfe (R-PA), or better yet, listen to those of Penn. Republican House Speaker Mike Turzai.



UPDATE (Oct. 17, 2012): See also this reported incident..

Perhaps the Republican theme is a fear of foreigners.  In the 2008 election, it appeared to be the Birthers' fear that a foreign born President would be elected.  That red herring had to be dropped in light of the fact that Mitt Romney's father was born in Mexico.  In 2012, perhaps the fear is that foreigners are reelecting him.

 Share