First and foremost, we must remember that the prosecutor in the Zimmerman case did not charge George Zimmerman until public outcry was so great that they, for all intents and purposes, had to make an arrest.
The prosecutor, of course, is the same who has charged, tried and convicted Marissa Alexander, an African American woman, for 20 years in prison… Why? For firing warning shots at her domestic abuser. She was denied a “Stand Your Ground” defense, a defense which Zimmerman did not even need to invoke (and which his defense did not).
Jarvis DeBerry breaks down six essential proofs from a legal insider, that the prosecution, which has repeatedly denied African American “Stand Your Ground” defenses, and which did not even want to prosecute George Zimmerman, threw the case, so that Zimmerman would experience only a temporary inconvenience, before being set free and having his murder weapon returned to him, so that he could kill again if he believes it necessary.
1) Prosecutors didn’t demand a change of venue. The recusal of the Seminole County district attorney and multiple judges from that county is proof that the case was a political hot potato and that there was a fear that there would be negative political ramifications following a Zimmerman conviction. Therefore, the state should have moved to have the venue changed.
2) They let jurors they didn’t want stay. Prosecutors tried but failed to have two jurors removed for cause. They could have had those two removed anyway by using their peremptory challenges, but instead, they let them stay on. Here’s a discussion at Slate Magazine about Juror B-37 in particular and the peculiar decision by prosecutors not to have her removed. A day after the trial she reportedly contacted a literary agent to “write” a book about the trial. But after social-media outrage, that literary agent has now decided against the deal.
3) They didn’t fight to get a single man on the jury. This, my source said, is prosecuting 101. In a fatal fight between men, you fight to get men on the jury. Men are more likely to convict.
4) Rachel Jeantel was poorly prepared. The lawyer said he’s dealt with witnesses from age 6 to 85 and has had to rely on witnesses who had no more than a second-grade education. Jeantel, a close friend of Martin, and the closest thing the state had to a star witness, was on the phone with him as he was being followed by Zimmerman. At times she seemed hostile to the questioning and her demeanor was all but certain, my source said, to turn off a jury that was reportedly five white women and a Latina. “We made ‘em into witnesses,” my source said of those folks who came with shortcomings. “That’s called preparation.”
5) Prosecutors played for the jury a television interview that Zimmerman gave to Fox News’ Sean Hannity. The defense wouldn’t have been permitted to play that tape if they’d asked, he said, “so what’s the prosecution playing it for?” Didn’t prosecutors play the tape to highlight Zimmerman’s inconsistencies? I asked. Those inconsistencies were “microscopic,” he said. He said he was taught that “if it hurts your case, let the other guy do it.” But in this case, the defense wouldn’t have been able to do it because, he said, the tape was clearly hearsay and not subject to cross-examination.
6) A Sanford police officer who was asked if he believed Zimmerman’s story of self-defense was allowed to answer yes without the prosecution objecting. Witnesses should not be permitted to offer an opinion on the credibility of other witnesses or other evidence. The next day prosecutors asked the judge to strike that portion of the investigator’s testimony, and she complied. But why did the prosecution sit quietly as the question was asked and answered?
The State of Florida let George Zimmerman literally get away with murder (or at least manslaughter). SPREAD THE WORD about how the prosecution threw the case!