Posted on 04/11/2012 11:06:13 AM PDT by doug from upland
Editor's note: Alan Dershowitz is the Felix Frankfurter professor of law at Harvard Law School.
(CNN) -- On the basis of the evidence currently in the public record, one likely outcome of the case against George Zimmerman is a mixed one: There may be sufficient evidence for a reasonable prosecutor to indict him for manslaughter, but there may also be doubt sufficient for a reasonable jury to acquit him.
Any such predictions should be accepted with an abundance of caution, however, because the evidence known to the special prosecutor, but not to the public, may paint a different picture. It may be stronger or weaker.
Media reports suggest that police found Zimmerman with grass stains on the back of his shirt, bloody bruises on the back of his head and other indicia that may support his contention that Trayvon Martin was banging his head against the ground when Zimmerman shot him.
We don't know what Martin's body or clothing show, other than the fatal bullet wound. If there are no comparable bruises or grass stains and if the bullet wound and powder residue establish that the gun was fired at very close range, this too might support a claim of self-defense.
Then there is a recorded cry for help, which, if it turns out to be the voice of Martin, would undercut the defense -- if the voice analysis passes scientific muster and is deemed admissible into evidence.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
He’s being charged according to a headline i just saw go by. Wash Post reporting that.
I’m sure Eric Holder will “fix” the jury to make sure he’s not acquitted.
Will there be a change of venue to ensure he gets an unfair trial?
“Reasonable jury” LOL....maybe they can recruit the jury from O.J. Simpson.
Yep. The Wash Po is reporting it. But charged with what? I hope he’s in Peru seeking citizenship.
What they likely will try and do if they can influence things is stretch it out so if there’s an acquittal the riots take place after the election. Oh and i have no doubt they will try and influence things.
Dershowitz is usually a smart guy, like him or not.
So why does he repeat this bit of the media's fabricated tall tale?
There is ZERO evidence that Zimmerman "ignored" the dispatcher's "advice." (And even if he had "ignored" it, he was under no legal obligation to follow it.)
And there is ZERO evidence that Zimmerman ever tried to "engage" the "'suspect.'" Quite the contrary.
Dershowitz should know this by now.
Fox News just announced that The Washington Post is reporting that a source close to the investigation says that Zimmerman will be charged. I’ve been thinking there’s a possibility that they don’t have enough evidence to charge him for murder or manslaughter and the Feds can’t get him with a civil rights charge so he’s getting the ‘witness protection’ treatment, new identity, relocation and all. That would explain the weird behavior of his attorneys and why the special prosecutor would take 3 days to announce a decision she’s obviously already made. I know it sounds crazy but...
I don’t think it sounds crazy....either that or he’s found a way to get out of the country....he will never be able to live here again.
“Will there be a change of venue to ensure he gets an unfair trial?”
To assure fairness, trial should be held in DC /sarc
” and the Feds can’t get him with a civil rights charge “
That comes later - it’s the GHWB Docrine: after a local jury acquits, trump up Federal Charges to placate the mob...
Fox reporting what WaPo reporting what source “close” to investigation is saying. Dontcha just love all this direct info? Sheesh!!!
He’s probably snuck out of the US and gone to California.
If they put him in jail that contains any of Holders people, he will be dead in about 30 microseconds
The dispatcher said: “we don’t need you to do that” (follow Martin). Not only is than not an order — it’s not even advice. It is just a statement of what the dispatcher believes he, and the police need.
A 911 dispatcher (and other police officials) should use plain, unambiguous language. There shouldn’t be much room for misinterpretation. If the dispatcher had said: “don’t do that” — then that would be a clear command. If he had said “I advise you not to do that” — that would have been clear advice not to follow Martin. Instead he said: “We don’t need you to do that”. It would have been reasonable for Zimmerman to respond: “That’s okay mate, I don’t mind.”
My prediction. It goes to jury trial. Sharpton, punk Spike Lee, et al, are going to tweet the names and addresses of the jury members. They and their families are going to be threatened and under enormous pressure.
That’s exactly why this prosecutor chose to charge Zim - to placate the mob, to avoid the “pandemonium” promised by Martin’s lawyer.
The prosecutor just kicked the can down the road,
because if justice is served, Zim is acquitted,
and 0bama’s private army riots anyway.
Everyone seems to want to ignore what Zimmerman's reply was to the "OK, we don't need you to do that".
He said....and I quote.... "OK".
Try as I might, I can't read that as anything other than compliance.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.