(no link)
Zimmerman Attorneys Defend Their Case; Verdict Debated
FOX News Channel - Tuesday, July 16, 2013
Show: FOX ON THE RECORD WITH GRETA VAN SUSTEREN
Author: Greta Van Susteren
EXCERPT
VAN SUSTEREN: Daryl Parks is a lawyer for the Martin family. He joins us. Nice to see you again, Daryl.
DARYL PARKS, MARTIN FAMILY ATTORNEY: Hi, Greta . Great to see you, as well.
VAN SUSTEREN: Daryl, I want to talk to you about what the attorney general says in a second because there’s some things I want to take him to task with. But I want to first speak about Jasmine Rand, who is on your team. And last night, she told me that she obviously disagreed with the jury verdict and says she was into social engineering , I think was the term she used.
Does this — does the team not have respect for the jury and the jury system?
PARKS: We have tremendous respect, Greta , for the jury system. In fact, up until last night, I really was of the opinion that the jury was off-limits and the province of the jury should be respected.
When you listen, though, to what that lady said last night — I was so disheartened as I drove back up to Tallahassee, and I got on the phone with my client and said, I can’t believe what she’s saying.
VAN SUSTEREN: Who are you...
(CROSSTALK)
VAN SUSTEREN: Who are you saying, the Jasmine...
PARKS: The juror. The juror.
VAN SUSTEREN: Oh, the juror. You’re not talking about — you’re not talking about your colleague on this — on this team, right? You’re talking about the juror?
PARKS: Right. Right. And I think — let me explain what Jasmine was saying, is that there’s a point — certainly, as lawyers, we try cases, we respect what the jury does, but we also respect the fact that law evolves. And so — and the issue may be with the law itself, not necessarily with the jury itself. The jury, as I say, was following the law. The law has a kink to it that needs to be addressed.
VAN SUSTEREN: All right, let me...
PARKS: And so...
VAN SUSTEREN: ... let me just talk to you for — I was so disheartened with her. I expect so much more from lawyers. You know, she’s had training, and I would think she’d have a profound respect for the jury system and these jurors who we drafted to do that. So I was profoundly disappointed with her.
As to the law evolving, this is one of the most ridiculous discussions about the “stand your ground” versus self-defense. They are one and the same. They are — I’ve spent the afternoon reading them. They are one and the same. There’s no difference. Self-defense, you have a right to defend yourself, just like with “stand your ground.” I don’t know why in the world people are getting these two things confused because I’ve been working on it. I don’t get the attorney general.
But the — but the fact is, is that that wasn’t even what was argued to the jury by the defense. And somehow, we’ve morphed into this other discussion. Maybe that’s the social engineering that we have a complete disregard for the facts and what happened in the trial and a complete disregard for the responsibility of the jurors, that they took it! So I don’t get — I don’t get your team (ph).
PARKS: Well, let’s go back to the jury, though, for a second, too, Greta , because when you listen to this juror — and when she talked about Rachel Jeantel and how she described her, and for whatever reason, this juror associated being uneducated with being untruthful. I have a fundamental problem with that concept.
VAN SUSTEREN: Well, then, you know, the prosecution...
PARKS: Number two...
VAN SUSTEREN: ... did a lousy job arguing its case! I mean, look, I’ve had lots of clients, Daryl, and so have you, that haven’t had much education and aren’t good. But that’s our job! That’s not the jurors! Maybe the lawyers are lousy. Maybe the prosecutors were terrible at their job and (INAUDIBLE) But why are we picking on the jurors who we draft? We tell them to do the job, everyone agreed to them, and suddenly, people don’t like it, so suddenly, they’re the wrong ones, they’re the bad guys!
PARKS: Well, one other issue, Greta . It became clear to me that — I’ve listened to her now about six times, very troubled by it. The biggest problem I probably had, which is that every chance that she could draw an inference from key evidence in the case, the inference was always taken against Trayvon Martin, for whatever reason. And that’s probably...
VAN SUSTEREN: But let me stop there! Why — why did the prosecution agree to this juror that they picked it? And maybe it was because the inferences were the ones that (ph) because it wasn’t argued well. Maybe the prosecution didn’t present well. But why are you indicting a juror? Why are you — why are you saying the system doesn’t work?
You know what?
PARKS: No, no. Look...
VAN SUSTEREN: I’ve had so many — I’ve had so many cases, Daryl, where I’ve disagreed, where verdicts have gone against me, but I’ve never been so disrespectful to the citizens who gave up their time to weigh the evidence! I just haven’t!
PARKS: Well, let me say this here. And let me — I — if you would look at any of my interviews I gave before last night, I really thought they were totally off-limits completely, right? However, I do have a real issue, though, Greta , when a juror shows up with a literary deal within 48 hours of a verdict. I’m sorry. I just have a problem with that.
VAN SUSTEREN: Well, you’ll hear — you’ll hear about that. We’ve got a report coming up on that. And you know, frankly, I got to confess I’m curious what the jurors have to say, you know, how the experience was for them. So I actually — you know, I may be in the minority. I don’t particularly mind that. But we have a report on that.
But I’ll tell you, a far deeper issue to me is when lawyers who should know better go out and denigrate the system that we work so hard to get justice in! What do you think — what kind of a message does that send to everybody out there, when we people who work in the system and try to get justice, is when we don’t like it, we go out and we trash the very system which is the only thing we have to get justice for our clients!
PARKS: If I may, Greta , I don’t think she was trashing the system whatsoever, all right? I don’t think that was her point. I think what she was saying is that we believe that the response that the system has right now to this issue, right, is an issue that we need to address and see if we can improve it.
VAN SUSTEREN: Well, I’m always in favor of improving it. And actually, Daryl, you know, there are a lot of problems with the criminal justice system. One is that there are so many poor people in this country don’t have access to lawyers and get really lousy representation. But that’s an issue that — you know, that no one’s paying much attention to. But anyway — Daryl, always nice to see you.
PARKS: But Greta , let me say...
VAN SUSTEREN: Yes. Go ahead.
PARKS: Thank you. You know, people just have to understand sometimes — I can understand — I listened to what Mark and Don said, right, and, yes, maybe the law favored Zimmerman to some degree that he was able to get this acquittal. But please understand this — people...
VAN SUSTEREN: I don’t think it did!
PARKS: ... and not just a lawyer...
VAN SUSTEREN: I don’t think the law favored him! It’s not the law that acquitted him!
PARKS: No, the law did law favor him.
VAN SUSTEREN: It was the facts!
PARKS: He fundamentally...
VAN SUSTEREN: No, no, no, no, no!
PARKS: ... should go to jail! Fundamentally...
VAN SUSTEREN: No, no!
PARKS: ... the law helped him in this situation.
VAN SUSTEREN: You know what? I — I read the jury instructions. I read them this afternoon. There is just — it’s the routine jury instructions. It’s the Constitution. And it’s the facts. And people don’t like it can, you know, throw darts at it. But I tell you one thing, you know — you know, it was not the law that favored him!
PARKS: No. He was an unarmed teenager, Greta .
VAN SUSTEREN: I — I...
PARKS: An unarmed teenager shouldn’t die...
VAN SUSTEREN: You know...
PARKS: ... to the hands...
VAN SUSTEREN: Daryl...
PARKS: ... of a man with a gun.
VAN SUSTEREN: ... of course not!
PARKS: I’m sorry.
VAN SUSTEREN: Daryl — Daryl, of course it’s a terrible thing. My heart bleeds for the Trayvon Martin family. But you know, the fact — you know, but the thing is, by denigrating the jury who weighed the facts, we’re not doing anything — we’re not doing anything for Daryl (sic) and his family! You know what we’re doing?
PARKS: Greta , no one denigrated...
VAN SUSTEREN: We’re hurting the next person coming through the system!
PARKS: ... that juror.
VAN SUSTEREN: Oh, I think — I think...
PARKS: No one denigrated her.
VAN SUSTEREN: I actually think — I think if you have a lawyer come on like Jasmine Rand, if you have her come on at night and she says, Well, we don’t like the jury, but I’m into social engineering — what in the world is that? She should be out there supporting the system to do everything we can to make it better!
PARKS: I think she does support the system. She respects the system, and I can assure you of that. I think that part of it maybe was emotion. But we respect the system. We thanked these people for their time. They’ve done their service. We accept their verdict. But now we must go on to work on changing this law.
VAN SUSTEREN: Well, I don’t know what law you want to change. I mean — I mean, I’ve looked at the law. But I don’t know. If you’re talking about “stand your ground,” stick around, listen to the conversation about it because for the life of me — I even blogged about it on Gretawire.
I can’t figure out what the difference between “stand your ground” and self-defense is because with self-defense, you get to stand your ground against someone coming at you with a deadly force of if you’re in imminent fear of it. I don’t get it. Maybe I’m wrong on it. But Daryl, stick around, and maybe you’ll hear — maybe the lawyers will teach me something. But thank you, Daryl. Always nice to see you.
PARKS: Thank you. Thank you so much.
Thanks. Appreciate transcript (s)