Zimmerman Verdict Announced: Not Guilty

Adam L. Silverman, PhD*

The local cable in the Tampa Bay area has just announced televised the live verdict reading in the Zimmerman Case.  The jury returned with a verdict of not guilty, the Judge asked the Prosecution if they wanted the jury polled, they did, and all six jurors indicated that the verdict was their verdict. Click on over to Bay News 9 for ongoing local Central Florida coverage.

* Adam L. Silverman is the Culture and Foreign Language Advisor at the US Army War College.  The views expressed here are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of the US Army War College and/or the US Army.

Comments

[Tyler]

Doctor Silverman,

Its been a while since we talked, I just wanted to say hello. The chickens are fine and I hope you are well.

[Adam L Silverman]

Tyler,

I'm good, but have been swamped. I'm one deep and I've been doing a lot of applied culture ops and ops support work on stuff going on in the ME right now. When you're consistently turning 65 to 70 plus hour weeks, something has to give. Though I do read the posts and the comments.

Glad to hear you and the fowl are doing well!

Adam

[The Twisted Genius]

We'll be subject to endless rehash of every aspect of both the Martin killing and the Zimmerman trial over the next few weeks, whether we like it or not. All this at the expense of coverage of the ongoing blatant destruction of the Constitution and the fourth amendment. The administration and the entire "national security enterprise" must be thrilled.

[Walrus]

The jury has spoken. end of story.

[Walrus]

Completely off topic, but I have a choice of live Foxnews coverage of Zimmerman or "le tour" guess which program I am watching and which shows their country in a better light? Where is the American equivalent of "le tour"? Where is USIA? What an advertisement for France.

[turcopolier]

All

I was mistaken in thinking that the jury would not act according to the law. I apologize to them for thinking that. It will be interesting to learn if Obama has this man tried under federal civil rights law for violating Martin's rights. In an example of legislative legerdemain the wording of the applicable civil rights law enables the federal government to ignore the burden of the Anglo-Saxon tradition against double jeopardy. My guess would be that the Obama/Holder government will seek an indictment against GZ. At the same time the "ethnic entrepreneurs" will bring a civil lawsuit. pl

[jdledell]

Tangential to the Zimmerman issue and his acquittal as self-defense, I want to relay a personal situation from 2 years ago that still gives me nightmares.

One night at 2:30 am I was awakened by the sound of a door handle being jiggled on the patio door in the Master bathroom. I got up and went over to see what it was and saw nothing. But as I was going back to bed, I saw the beam of a flashlight streaming into the hall from another bedroom. I immediately took my gun out of the nightstand and rode my wheelchair toward the light which then went out. It was pitch black out and I could see that it was a large male who then moved window to window outside the house.

I followed him along until we got to the sun room where I could see him jiggling the double patio doors. I could see he had a gun in his hand and I was within a second of shooting multiple rounds into him from 5 feet away. I was scared silly, my wife and I being elderly and myself in a wheelchair could not have put up much resistance had he broken in.

Instead, I went to the phone and dialed 911 and was told a squad car would be there immediately. After all was said and done, it was a police officer who was the dark large male with a gun in hand. He had responded to a 911 call from the neighborhood reporting that someone thought they saw a suspicious person. The policeman said he was checking windows and doors to see if anyone had broken in.

I told him he was damn lucky to be alive and he told me that then I would be the one with a big problem. If I had shot him, what do you think my chances would be of being acquitted by reason of self defense?

[Fred]

Apparently the prosecution was withholding evidence:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-zimmerman-evidence-firing-20130713,0,4147108.story

[jonst]

"...end of story." Not by a long shot. Not even near the end. We'll have federal investigation to determine if any federal laws have been violated. We'll have a civil action against Z as well. We may also--I don't know Professional Guidelines in Florida--have some complaint filed against the Z defense team. No...this is not over...there is still money on the table to be fought over. Ethnic Entrepreneurs and media types will on the prowl.

[steve]

I agree with you TTG.

Regarding Snowden, the media and their pols have done a superb job of reducing the policy implications of the security state to 1) the in's and out's of Snowden's fugitive status and 2) his personality and/or individual political views.

[steve]

Colonel,

Personally, I don't think the Obama administration has the attention span to dwell on the passing issues du jour. Imho, there's no more political hay to be made from the Zimmerman case. As in most things, Obama's MO is to give a nice speech with some "bold" proposals, and that's about it.

Though I agree, I think it goes without saying there will be private civil litigation.

[Larry Kart]

Potentially interesting take from Josh Marshall's' TPM blog about an aspect of the case that I wondered about:

"TPM Reader DD writes in from Wisconsin. Going on the below, I’d be curious to hear from lawyers in other jurisdictions how distinct Florida law seems from how a case with a similar set of facts would have been adjudicated in their jurisdictions …

'I’m a criminal defense lawyer in Wisconsin, but I’ll tell you my reaction to the Zimmerman verdict today. I’ve had friends in Florida asking for my take. I haven’t watched the trial very closely (it seems like an ordinary criminal case to me in many respects). But I was astounded that the defense would put on a “self-defense” argument without the defendant testifying. In most civilized jurisdictions [sic], the burden is on the defense to prove, at least more likely than not, that the law breaking was done for reasons of self-defense. I couldn’t figure out how they could do this without the defendant’s testimony.

'I got curious and read the jury instructions Friday night and, I was wrong. In Florida, if self-defense is even suggested, it’s the states obligation to prove it’s absence beyond a reasonable doubt(!). That’s crazy. [sic] But ‘not guilty’ was certainly a reasonable result in this case. As I told in friend in Tampa today though, if you’re ever in a heated argument with anyone, and you’re pretty sure there aren’t any witnesses, it’s always best to kill the other person. They can’t testify, you don’t have to testify, no one else has any idea what happened; how can the state ever prove beyond a doubt is wasn’t self-defense? Holy crap! What kind of system is that?'

The "sics" are mine of course. The poster's bias/point of view/what have you is clear (he's from the infamous state of Wisconsin after all), but at least he has the sense to say "But ‘not guilty’ was certainly a reasonable result in this case."

[Amir]

http://www.juancole.com/2013/07/african-americans-numbers.html

I am sure GZ having been white and having a prosecutor as father, compared to Martin being an average Black teenager of modest income, does not have anything to do with it. Do I think they deserve it? It is not only the oppressors fault, but the oppressed for allowing them to do it.

[Eakans]

That's fine. Florida has an unlimited homestead. Let them spin their wheels with a civil trial.

[toto]

The jury applied the law, as it should. Stulta lex, sed lex.

[turcopolier]

jonst

I don't quite get the part about "Professional Guidelines." What would the accusation be? There also seems to be thye possibility that GZ may sue the government of Sanford and the special prosecutor for something like false arrest. pl

[turcopolier]

jdledell

Burglars do not usually carry a drawn pistol into a house on entry. They are looking to steal, not kill you. I live in a state where a lot of people own guns, but if you had shot him in Virginia while he was outside your house you would have been charged. pl

[turcopolier]

amir

Does it occur to you that perhaps they might be responsible for some of their problems? Does the Zimmerman family look rich to you? Zimmerman's father and Martin's father were living in the same very middle class looking townhouse development. You have conveniently omitted to mention that the full resources of the state of Florida were applied to this attempt to imprison GZ. pl

[Fred]

You are correct, it does not. Of course the fine liberal professor doesn't seem to realize there are poor white people in this country. Perhaps he could get off his rump and go over to the liberal arts college and have someone quote Mark Twain to him: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."

[Fred]

Yes, in France, where speech is regulated by the Government and corporations must provide access to all data:
http://boingboing.net/2013/07/13/in-france-twitter-grudgingly.html

Just what are the forbidden words in France?

[Fred]

"In most civilized jurisdictions [sic], the burden is on the defense to prove, at least more likely than not, that the law breaking was done for reasons of self-defense."

When did Wisconsin change their legal standards to place the burden of proof on the accused? No wonder Scott Walker defeated the recall effort. If this lawyer you quote is an example of liberal legal standards in Wisconsin they are in big trouble.

[turcopolier]

fred

"Vive le roi!" pl

[jonst]

Well, Col, I was listening to the talking heads this AM, and reading some of reaction to the verdict...and I got the impression some people might have been building up 'legally nuanced' rhetoric about the defense lawyer's post verdict statements, as well as reference to a blog the defense set up that "might have been a way" 'unduly influence' prospective jurors. I was hearing dog whistle words....as if some lawyer in the background was feeding them to the media. Generally speaking, it is fairly easy to bring one of these complaints before a professional sanctioning body. They are costly to defend. And then you have to answer on your insurance application..."In the last year have you had a complaint bla, bla, bla,....or whatever the buzz words are in Florida.

perhaps I am overreacting....but I would not be surprised. I was talking this over with a Florida lawyer this AM who has some experience as an official on an Oversight Panel in Florida. He said it is a fairly low bar TO FILE one...high bar to be disciplined. But I repeat, as an harassment technique? I would not be surprised.

[Tyler]

ALCON,

In regards to the DOJ bringing the totally illegal (under double jeopardy) 'civil rights violations' against Zimmerman, I don't think they're able to. Zimmerman, being a private citizen, doesn't fall under the status that a state actor would have in this situation.

As far as private civil suits go, I believe that Zim's is immune as per Florida statute from any civil suit for this. Watching the press conference last night, I think O'Mara and West are ready to hulk out on anyone thinking of bringing a civil suit as well.

I thought it was hilarious how, in the post trial press conferences, the prosecution attempted to retry the case. The height of farce? When BDLR claimed that their theory backed up by zero evidence was the 'correct' one.

Gotta wonder how good Zimmerman's breakfast tastes today.

[ms. shepherd]

@Fred:
An affirmative defense is a special type of defense, which does require the defendant to show some sort of proof in order for it to work. This is not a phenomenon restricted to Wisconsin; rather, it is a part of the common law present in all 50 states.
@Larry Kart: The Wisconsin lawyer you quote is quite sensible to view the Zimmerman case as somewhat run-of-the-mill, and not to be surprised by the verdict. However, he or she is incorrect in assuming a defendant must testify in order for the affirmative defense of self defense to work. Of course, a defendant never needs to testify if he or she does not want to. Ever. But this does not prescribe the use of self defense. In the trial of George Zimmerman, there were numerous statements he made to the police that were introduced against him by the prosecution that were so consistent with acting in self defense that his lawyers could rely on those. There was also physical evidence: wounds on the back of Zimmerman's head, grass and moisture on his back, and grass stains on Martin's knees, all of which suggested a physical altercation where Zimmerman was getting the extreme short end of the stick. Finally, there was some eyewitness evidence, which also suggested that Martin was the aggressor on top of Zimmerman. In the face of all these facts, there was absolutely no need for Zimmerman to testify.
(Disclaimer: Like DD from Wisconsin, I am also a criminal defense attorney who did not follow the trial very closely, other than reading accounts of the evidence and testimony. I wouldn't have put him on the stand either. Why open that can of worms?)