It now appears likely that Angela Corey, the special prosecutor appointed by Florida Governor Rick Scott, will bring the Trayvon Martin shooting matter before a grand jury this week. Under Florida law, she doesn’t have to do that: she could issue an indictment or clear shooter George Zimmerman of a crime on her own authority. It is likely, however, that a grand jury will get the job of deciding whether there is probable cause that a crime was committed, and whether Zimmerman was guilty of it.
[UPDATE: CNN just announced that there will be NO grand jury. Corey will make the decision herself. The post now applies solely to her, and her alone.]
In Florida, a grand jury consists of between 15 and 21 jurors, who have been appointed for five to six months of intermittent service. For the grand jury to indict Zimmerman, 12 jurors must decide that an indictment can be supported by the evidence. The grand jury’s final decision may take any amount of time, though seldom more than a week.
New York State chief judge Sol Wachtler famously said that if a prosecutor wants it to happen, a grand jury can be made to indict a ham sandwich. Corey will be the only official who interacts with the jury, and she is already in a nearly impossible ethical dilemma. What if, having reviewed the evidence, she sincerely believes that Zimmerman did not commit a crime?
If she does, then it is unethical to bring the case before a grand jury at all. If she does take the case to the grand jury, we must accord her the benefit of the doubt, and presume that she has a sufficient case to make for Zimmerman’s guilt, but realistically, she must be aware that for her to unilaterally make the call that an indictment is not appropriate would guarantee accusations of racism, suspicion, distrust, and social unrest. Even if, in her view, there is no case, she will want a grand jury—the stand-in for “the people”—to make the official call, both to give it added weight and credibility and, realistically, to avoid having the entire, emotion-charged, explosive decision on her shoulders alone.
If the grand jury honestly finds that Zimmerman violated no Florida law and that he fired in self-defense, will it still treat him as the proverbial ham sandwich and indict anyway? I hope not, but I fear so. No citizen should be forced to defend himself in a court of law because officials and grand juries fear accusations, rallies, and social discord in response to their good faith and diligent discharge of their duties. Nonetheless, the relentless attention devoted to this case, the single-minded focus on prosecuting Zimmerman as the equivalent of “justice for Trayvon,” and the natural reluctance of officials and public citizens to light a fuse that might lead to an explosion of violence seems to guarantee that George Zimmerman will be indicted whether he deserves to be or not. That will mean that the growing mob, encouraged by incompetent and inaccurate news reports and unconscionable comments by elected officials, will have achieved its purpose, and unethically influenced the justice process by intimidation—a failure for the system, and a capitulation to mob rule.
Somewhere in the back rooms of Florida’s government I suspect there have been solemn discussions at high levels rationalizing this result, concluding that it is better than one man be sacrificed than to have blood run in the streets. If so, that is a tragedy for all of us. If there is one principle that should never be breached in the justice system, it is that no citizen should be ever accused of a crime in response to intimidation, threats, popular opinion, because it is the path of least resistance or because elected or appointed officials lack the courage to follow the law, whatever the result. To do otherwise defies all standards of fairness, integrity and justice itself.
Despite his flaws and mistakes, George Zimmerman is not a ham sandwich, but a U.S. citizen with rights that should not be cancelled with a bullhorn or a Million Hoodie March. If he is indicted, we should all hope it is for the right reason–because there is probable cause that he committed a crime, not to appease the mob. But is there any realistic chance that if the evidence indicates that he should not be indicted, he won’t be?
I don’t think so. That means that for George Zimmerman, and the nation, the system has failed already.
Ethics Alarms 
That man is in the worst position possible. If he is found guilty and goes to jail, he will probably not live through the experience. If he is found innocent, he will not live long unless the FBI move him and put him in witness protection.
And the only way to prevent the riots that are being geared up is if he is found guilty. I am not even sure that will stop the riots.
If I were a squadron commander of A-10’s at MacDill Air Force Base, I would draw up plans for the squadron to stop any riots in their tracks.
Then you would be a horrible officer and should be court martialed and thrown in the brig.
A riot, in this case, would be the use of violence to deprive an American citizen of due process guarantees, and part of a larger effort to leave Americans defenseless against criminals. We would all be victims.
The rioters would be in unlawful rebellion against the United States, just like those who fired on Fort Sumter.
You have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to what an open rebellion is and to what role the military plays in enforcing civilian law.
It may be instructive for readers less local to the case to note that Corey, in her usual job as Jacksonville’s State Attorney, is under very similar fire for trying 12-year-old murder suspect Cristian Fernandez as an adult.
Meanwhile, nothing is done to ensure that Cassandra Ann Kennedy is indicted.
Where is the outrage? Why is no one threatening her with death? Why is no one tweeting her address? Why no media attention?
Wow Jack, I never expected you to out-Eeyore me, but I think you’ve done it this time. I sympathize with the no-win position Zimmerman is in, to the same degree I sympathize with the family and friends immediate to Martin who are mourning his death by gunfire at 17. For those persons most directly involved, it’s hard to imagine a more saddening, vexing situation. I do dread how “bad” seems poised to go to “worse,” inexorably. But we must not give up.
We all want justice. But who can be SO sure of WHAT justice is truly due for whom, in this situation? No one, that’s who. But, unless all deference to any notion of “social order” is abandoned (as, it seems, may already have been done in some quarters), somehow, cooler heads (without having to fire the cannons of A-10 combat aircraft, let us hope) simply must rise up and take the lead in this unfolding, unnecessarily goaded-toward-multiplicative tragedy.
For a change, I would like to see the agitator class recognize their golden moment for enabling reconciliation, and call for “courageous calm:” The high road that they, and they alone, can and must take, for the sake of any hope for that higher social order they at least imply they want. Next, I would like for those same “leaders” to tout the current U.S. justice system – however imperfect it may be at this time – as superior to any that anyone could expect to replace it with. That is where I think so many of the exploiters of the shooting tragedy in Florida are going wrong – and they certainly had better be smart enough to recognize that, no matter what their agendas and ultimate aims. If they don’t realize that they are not being careful enough about what they are wishing for, then they had better wise-up quickly, or else they’re going to get it.
The ossified Republicans of the classical party structure are losing the future tragically enough. The nation and the world has no need for a new coalition of American “Banana Republicans” to hijack the U.S. justice system and drain the healing, cleansing springs of today’s courts into some ever-deepening, reactionary, pseudo-altruistic sinkhole.
I agree with your thoughts. The people that could bring peace, I fear don’t have the courage to do so.
I have read that the prosecutor is not going to present the case to a grand jury, but will decide for herself whether to bring charges. Got no question about that, although, as a defense attorney, I have seen more than one case prosecuted because the victim was fairly prominent in the community and wanted it done. My big issue in the Martin case is, if charges are brought, where in the world are they going to find enough impartial jurors to hear this case, without resoting to those who are completely ignorant to what has been going on in the case and are thus probably so ill-advised and ill-read about everything so as not to be desirable jurors?
I agree. As in the Bernard Goetz case, I doubt they can. That’s why all the statis and hoopla helps nobody, especially justice.
So they are considering appeasing evil, the way Neville Chamberlain appeased Adolf Hitler?
We should not give into intimidation. If anyone is willing to cause an explosion of violence, then make an example of them. We have tanks, helicopter gunships, and ground-attack jets.
If I were the governor of Florida, I would stand at a base with all the aforementioned combat vehicles, and give the following speech.
That would be the Ethics Quote of the Millenium.
I really don’t think clear heads will ever prevail here, and I see things escalating even more than have already. Here we go again with the media fanning the flames. From the Wall Street Journal Online:
Wild Goose-Step Chase
Journalists propagate neo-Nazi bluster.
By JAMES TARANTO
Because of the inflammatory subject matter, the first thing we need to say about this online “report” from the Miami New Times, an alternative weekly, is that it is false. Here’s the lead sentence of the story, which appeared late Friday: “Neo-Nazis are conducting heavily armed patrols in and around Sanford, Florida, and are ‘prepared’ for violence in case of a race riot” connected to the shooting death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin.
Anyone reading this should have been highly skeptical. So should reporter Michael Miller. He did not travel 250 miles to Sanford to see these “patrols” in action. He did not speak to anyone in Sanford until Sunday, when he posted an update: “The Sanford Police Department says it has no evidence of neo-Nazis in the area.”…
I eagerly await the blogpost on how Zimmerman’s attorneys’ press conference today, explaining in excruciating detail why they are stepping down, compromises Zimmerman’s case. Sure, I believe they should offer some explanation to the public and assure the public that their departure is not a statement about his guilt or innocence but they went overboard. Why not issue a succint, carefully-worded statement. They aired a lot of dirty laundry. Or am I naive? Is this an effort to gain sympathy with the public about their client’s state of mind (it’s not having that effect on me). I’m also surprised to learn the attorneys have not met face to face with Zimmerman. I just think they could have exited more gracefully, without leaving a lot of ethical detritus in their wake.
Yup. In fact, they should not have made any public statement at all.
Marking this day on my calendar = we agree on something. It’s just getting weirder today. Believe it or not, I have sympathy for Zimmerman as these guys do the talk show circuit. What (decent) attorney is going to want to take this case now?
My guess is that the source of the report came from neo-Nazis themselves.
Of course, given their craven cowardice, I am not surprised that they were a no-show.
.
QUOTE:
“Zimmerman realized that his “self-defense”
claim consists of nothing more than …
S-kittles
H-oodies
I-ced
T-ea
and now he feels a need to
escape from the world as
he hides behind the pile of
S-kittles
H-oodies
I-ced
T-ea
“self-defense” claim
he hoped would work.”
SOURCE:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/FarmFamily/trayvon-martin-case-george-zimmermans-attorneys-quit_n_1416031_147149755.html
.
Non sequitur. Completely.
Note that he quoted himself.
It is important to know the true motivations of these people. It is because they hate the idea of people like Harold Fish and Hale DeMar. They do not believe that George Zimmerman was not defending himself; to the contrary, they believe he did, and to them that is a crime.
Are you working on a long post about these defense attorneys? I am eager to see if you manage to convince us all that Sharpton, Jackson, Rep Wilson and Waters, Michael Eric Dyson, the New Panther Party, and the men’s room attendant at LaGuardia are somehow the ones actually responsible for their questionable ethics yesterday (after posting my comment yesterday, I saw Dershowitz made a similar comment on Piers Morgan). Despite your focus on the ethics of high profile African Americans in this matter, I have seen you say some thoughtful evenhanded things on this case, so I’m hoping you are willing to call a spade a spade (even if they’re white).
I must say, I deeply resent your insinuation. The fact that it has mostly been high profile African Americans on the train wreck is not my doing.I pay no attention to the race of unethical public figures, except to the extent that their race causes them to influence others. I flagged the unethical conduct of Zimmerman’s lawyers before I knew what race they were…in fact, I was surprised: if I were Zimmerman, I’d want black lawyers. More important, I’d want competent and ethical lawyers, which these two guys were not.
I have identified non-blacks on the train wreck, including members of the media and Roseanne. Your comment is unfair and out of line.
That’s fair. I should have been more thoughtful and less flippant in my criticism of the ethics call-outs. A more nuanced characterization would be that this Website has overwhelmingly chastised those who have expressed support for the victim’s family’s cause. Meanwhile, those who defend Zimmerman and the white supremacists who hacked into Martin’s computer accounts and the media who have skewed the significance of these revelations and claims largely received a pass. At most, I’ve seen it said these claims are just deserts, in light of for the overzealous support for Martin. But I will take your reply to mean you believe the supporters of Zimmenrman have been equally irresponsible.
Thanks. I appreciate the acknowledgement.
I’m not keeping score, you know. I make a concerted effort not to write about conduct where the conduct is either obviously good or obviously wrong, unless there is a special angle or point I want to make, and that is worth making. With the EA readership, do I really have to write that white supremacists are unethical, or that computer hacking is unethical? Somewhere in the mass of stuff I’ve written about this case, I noted that it was unconscionable to trash Trayvon’s character to make the outrageous point that he should have been shot—I also pointed out that when Martin’s agitators were ginning up the public outcry by portraying him as someone he was not—he appears to have been a normal teenager—it was fair to point out that the kid was suspended twice and tried to look and sound tough on his Twitter feed.
There have not, to my knowledge, been high elected officials saying that Zimmerman was right to shoot the boy, or celebrities, or U.S. Presidents of any color, or news outlets manufacturing evidence to show that Martin got what was coming to him. If there were, I missed them. And if there were, I would have written about them.
What’s inflamed me is that the extended discussion the statements of TrayvonMartin’ssupporters has mirrored Fox News’ focus. Tonight on Fox News they are still bashingthe President, Eric Holder, Al Sharpton, and the New Black Panthers. It’s fascinating, it’s as if they are disappointed that a killer has been charged. Likewise, on Mark Levin’s radio show. Levin, at least, acknowledged something is odd with how two State attorneys arrived at such divergent conclusions (but that was his way of insinuating that Angela Corey must be caving to public pressure). Joan Walsh, editor for Salon, in a column today, “a win for social justice” sums up very well how commentators on the right have tried to characterize what these last six weeks were about. /written from my iPhone/
Fox News just blundered into the right side of the argument, as far as deploring the lynch mob goes. I think “mirror” is a misrepresentation: “mirror” would be anyone claiming that Zimmerman was absolutely innocent and that the shooting was 100% justified, based just on what we know. Fox, Levin, et al. didn’t do that. I listen to Mark, because I want to be listening when his head finally explodes. He’s a lawyer, and as nasty as he is, he’s no idiot. On the law, he has been correct regarding this incident, and he always says, “We don’t know what happened.” Any commentary with that starting point is automatically more ethical than the “this is a hate crime/ murder/ racism” crowd.
Ormoredevious.
Supercallafradulisticexpialidocious.
I fail to see how he can get a fair trial now.
Posting a picture of a vandalised Black Community centre, with the words “Long Live Zimmerman” on his fund-raising page, and making sure NBC and CNN both reported it, means it will be impossible to find an untainted jury. It was a very clever thing for the Defence to do, assuming a trial is ever held.