Zimmerman verdict: Seriously? You call this 'due process'?

  • Article by: JAY LARSON
  • Updated: July 15, 2013 - 6:35 PM

Real prosecution could have driven a truck through the holes in George Zimmerman’s story.

  • 122
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
ti1310Jul. 15, 13 6:10 PM

----Next, the prosecution brought the lead detective, who was supposedly there to bolster the prosecution’s case. He testified that he was certain that George Zimmerman was telling the truth. Why did he say that as a prosecution witness?--- because he is under oath to tell the truth.

121
37
ericgus55Jul. 15, 13 6:43 PM

ti1310 - On that point about the detective's testimony, you are correct. The author should have asked why the prosecution would have called the detective, but the fact is that if they hadn't, the defense would have.

66
26
ffedericoJul. 15, 13 6:47 PM

Jay, you've been listening to MSNBC too much. Try Fox for a little balance. You might learn something.

101
86
ericgus55Jul. 15, 13 6:48 PM

The problem is not really with how the prosecution presented its case, its just that they had little of a case to make. Under Florida law, self-defense claims are supposed to be assumed as true and prosecuted (or convicted) only when proven false (unlike MN, where a self-defense claim must be proven true). With no surviving witness, it's hard to dis-prove one man's story to a level to warrant a conviction. It's not so much a faulty prosecution as a faulty law. If the Florida law which mandates a three year sentence for brandishing a gun is taken into account, shooting and claiming self-defense is the smart move when in an altercation. While it's assumed that Zimmerman knew this catch, as someone who'd studied the laws, Florida law is the law in this case.

92
10
garagewineJul. 15, 13 7:00 PM

Looks like Mr. Larson hasn't gotten the whole "beyond a reasonable doubt" thing down yet. Maybe he should offer his services pro bono next time.

102
44
jbpaperJul. 15, 13 7:08 PM

Shut down the court systems, they are no longer needed. We have a man right here in St Boni that knows everything there is to know. Before we do that though, a few questions. Did you examine Mr Zimmerman? Mr Martin? The crime scene? Did you interview the witnesses? The investigators? Are you a forensics expert? A medical examiner?

114
46
FrankLJul. 15, 13 7:18 PM

The prosecutor was over the top in his rhetoric and antics. Why didn't he just stick to the facts? Instead he insulted the intelligence of the jurors. This also shows why cameras in the courtroom are a bad idea. The attorneys and the judges play up to the cameras.

58
33
salzyJul. 15, 13 7:26 PM

"He testified that he was certain that George Zimmerman was telling the truth. Why did he say that as a prosecution witness?" Because the defense would have called him and he would have testified the same way then. Then, the jury would have asked why the state hid the ball. Duh. Is this the best the Star Tribune could do for a rebuttal? Love these arm-chair lawyers.

83
31
otbrickiJul. 15, 13 7:37 PM

Mr. Larson seems to have no idea as to what 'due process' is. Here's a clue. It's part of the 5th Amendment and 14th Amendments, and it's there to protect defendants from arbitrary actions by the state. Furthermore it was originally part of the Magna Carta, which we have had for 900 years now. It is also expressed in multiple places in religious philosophy and in the Bible. The fact of the matter is that the prosecution had no way to prove a crime was committed because they had no evidence. And in this country, thanks to the Founders, the state has to prove you are guilty in a court of law before a jury before you can be punished. Due process WAS served here, and the public outcry for punishment without evidence of guilt was rejected. The idea that Zimmerman should be punished despite the fact that the state could not prove guilt is exactly the opposite of due process. Thank God and the Founders that due process was served here. The idea that justice should favor innocence is as old as Genesis and Judeo-Christian philosophy. Abraham drew near, and said, "Will you consume the righteous with the wicked? What if there are fifty righteous within the city? Will you consume and not spare the place for the fifty righteous who are in it? ... What if ten are found there?" He [The Lord] said, "I will not destroy it for the ten's sake." The twelfth-century legal theorist Maimonides, expounding on this passage as well as Exodus 23:7 ("the innocent and righteous slay thou not") argued that executing an accused criminal on anything less than absolute certainty would progressively lead to convictions merely "according to the judge's caprice. Hence the Exalted One has shut this door" against the use of presumptive evidence, for "it is better and more satisfactory to acquit a thousand guilty persons than to put a single innocent one to death."

84
31
hobie2Jul. 15, 13 7:42 PM

Yeah, that jury really got it wrong - they got to see all the facts without benefit of the media presenting the truth, and wild claims had to be backed up by fact, or not be introduced... When the prosecution witnesses said it happened like the victim said, there was no chance for the aggressor to get a fair shake in court - when everybody who testifies on both sides tells the same story, you just have to believe the story - that the victim was defending himself from the 6'3" attacker...

71
26

Comment on this story   |  

ADVERTISEMENT

  • about opinion

  • The Opinion section is produced by the Editorial Department to foster discussion about key issues. The Editorial Board represents the institutional voice of the Star Tribune and operates independently of the newsroom.

  • Submit a letter or commentary
Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT