As a former trial attorney, I rarely pay attention to the media circuses that surround major trials. I find the coverage of these trials exceedingly shallow and the reporting on what each side is and is not doing only slightly more enlightening than what passes for legal analysis on series like “CSI” and “Law and Order.” And I would have that kind of disinterest in the George Zimmerman trial were it not for the sociological backstory that is (let’s be honest) the reason it is getting as much coverage as it is.
Zimmerman is charged with second degree murder in the death of Trayvon Martin, the 17-year old black victim who died when Zimmerman shot him in the chest at close range. That much detail is not disputed in the case. What is in dispute is whether Zimmerman was acting in self-defense when he killed Martin. If so, he would be legally justified for his act and would not be guilty of the homicide.
That’s the basic law that will be applied if the jury properly follows the instructions the judge will provide. But that kind of legal issue is the heart of many a homicide case. It hardly justifies the media coverage of this trial, nor my interest in it.
What makes this case interesting to me is the racial aspect of the case and the degree to which the politics around race are driving the media coverage, even as the actual trial is seemingly ignoring that subject. Martin was black; Zimmerman is the son of a white father; his mother is Peruvian (which also qualifies as white in terms of color, but can also be classified as Hispanic, depending on how ethnicities are defined). Zimmerman was either stalking Martin or checking out his actions pursuant to his self-appointed role as a neighborhood watch guard.
Those who believe Zimmerman should be held accountable for Martin’s death want to make much of his motivation in following Martin that night. Legally, it really doesn’t matter what his motivation was. Here’s why:
Murder requires malice as the state of mind of the killer. Malice is a general intent that can be satisfied in a number of ways. The most obvious is clear intent to kill. That kind of malice is required for first-degree murder, which is not what Zimmerman is charged with. Hence, the prosecutor has already implicitly dismissed the “stalking” motivation as a basis for securing a conviction.
Instead, the prosecution is trying to establish that Zimmerman was acting wantonly or recklessly in his interaction with Martin. That form of malice (you’re hearing it in the trial described as “depraved mind, hatred, evil intent or ill will) is satisfied by a showing that the defendant acted in reckless disregard of the consequences of his action, as when a killer pulls a trigger on a gun aimed at another person thinking it to be unloaded. That defendant can claim he didn’t intend to kill the victim, but he can still be found guilty of murder because he displayed wanton disregard for his actions (or acted recklessly).
So that’s the theory the prosecution is hoping to convince the jury of concerning Zimmerman’s mental state. But that burden is dwarfed by the much larger burden the prosecution faces in the case, which is to disprove that Zimmerman shot Martin in self-defense.
Self-defense is a valid defense if the action taken was necessary to save the individual’s life or to prevent serious injury. And if evidence is offered to establish it as a potential defense (as it has been in the Zimmerman trial), the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant’s act was not in response to that kind of threat.
The media has made much of Florida’s “stand your ground” law, a law that allows defendants to kill instead of retreating in the face of a violent attack. That law is controversial in the abstract, but, as the evidence has been presented in the Zimmerman trial, it really isn’t relevant in determining whether Zimmerman acted in self-defense. Zimmerman claims not that he didn’t retreat when he could have (“stand your ground”), but that he couldn’t retreat because of the beating he was receiving from Martin. And, he claims, because he was in fear of his life, he was justified in shooting Martin.
That claim may not be true, but Zimmerman’s attorneys don’t have to prove that it is. They just have to establish that a reasonable doubt exists that it isn’t true. In other words, having produced evidence (the broken nose, the lacerations on the back of the head, the screams for help that were allegedly Zimmerman’s screams and not Martin’s) that Martin was beating up Zimmerman, the burden shifts to the prosecution to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Zimmerman was not reacting to that kind of a beating.
That burden is too great to overcome in this trial. Thus, Zimmerman will not be found guilty of second degree murder if the jury does its job correctly.
What Zimmerman may be guilty of is involuntary manslaughter, which is the crime that results from an imperfect exercise of self-defense. That charge would stand if a jury found that Zimmerman exceeded the amount of force necessary to repel Martin’s attack in shooting him in the chest. But to get a conviction for involuntary manslaughter, the prosecution must ask the judge to instruct the jury on it as a “lesser included” offense to the second-degree murder charge, and the judge must agree to give it (over what would surely be an objection by the defense).
What I have just provided is the legal analysis you should be hearing from the media. That you aren’t (on most of the coverage I’ve seen, at least) is the result of the racial aspects of the case that are really irrelevant to the actual trial but are apparently selling newspapers and attracting viewers nonetheless. And that fact is what makes this trial of interest to me. America has come a long way, but in the end, we are still consumed with racial attitudes that belie our noble aspirations.
Good analysis Ed. Clearly articulated too.
A favored sig line seen recently goes:
“You are the result of 4 billion years of evolution – act like it.”
On this level, the saturation coverage of this trial is an embarrassment to our species.
Not so much for the networks, they’re just responding to us the public for tuning in.
I am embarrassed to admit that I am one of the viewers. I’d like to claim that there’s nothing better on. That’s only half true, I have books.
Ed – I can’t watch the coverage for the very reasons you point out – the poor analysis provided by these 24-hr gabfests. It does little to illuminate the judicial process or the rule of law and comes across more like ESPN sports analysis, filled with all kinds of speculation. It provides salicious entertainment rather than enlightenment and it takes attention away from the multitude of current events that actully affect us.
Although the “stand your ground” law isn’t completely relevant to Zimmerman’s defense, I find it interesting to speculate that had Martin killed Zimmerman that day, while Zimmerman was following Martin and carrying a handgun, Martin would have been able to use the law to justify his actions, having good cause to believe his life was in danger. The law seems to set up a scenario where two individuals may both have malicious intent but neither could be prosecuted for the homicide of the other because both are entitled to “stand their ground.” Arguably, spontaneous fights to the death are legal in Florida. It practically gives gang warfare immunity.
Excellent, Ed! You point out that trials are not like game shows; that’s the level of analysis many in the news business give it–including far too many of the attorney analysts.
By the way, I agree that the state has not met its burden as to 2nd deg. murder.
Finally, good legal analysis could help ameliorate the racial aspects of trials like this.
Your comments are accurate – very few reporters understand the law, how it works or can report criminal law cases accurately. Networks should hire someone like you, Ed. Or at the very least, it would be nice if the reporters would take the time to research the law so they can do a better job.
One exception is Marcia Coyle, who comments on Supreme Court rulings, on PBS Channl 6. She not only understands what she is reporting, she has the gift of accurate reporting.
Alice, I have to push back that most commentators, at least on CNN and FOX, are in fact lawyers and some are judges. Moderators tilt the way you’d expect, but both networks are deep on experienced criminal defense commentators getting excited about both sides of the debate.
MSNBC on the other hand has Al Sharpton.
Excellent analysis, Ed – especially reading this piece now after we know the jury’s verdict. I understand and sympathize with those who are outraged and feel that justice was not done; however, as you so well stated, legally this was a very difficult case from the beginning. The media’s over-saturated and over-hyped coverage has not helped. It was refreshing to read your clear-headed take on this case. Also, the defense attorneys were acting like sore winners at their press conference. They are obviously brilliant but need a little “smoothing around the edges” at times, especially Mr. West!
I played there once. Experience of a lifetime.