Replies

Second degree murder requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the killer had “depraved indifference to human life.” Former prosecutor Andy McCarthy explains: “In a depraved mind case, motive is superfluous because what establishes the mens rea is the objective barbarity of the act itself, not some fuzzy ‘generalized hatred’ that may have been crawling around the killer's brain. It is virtually inconceivable that a situation involving self-defense on the killer's part will fit a ‘depraved mind’ charge.”

It isn’t good enough to say Zimmerman was foolish to follow Martin. It’s certainly not good enough to intuit that society has a biased perception of single black men. It’s not good enough to say Zimmerman wanted to be a hero. One has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was not simply a fool, a grandstander or even a racist (which the prosecution has utterly failed to do, and indeed has left a gaping hole where evidence of racism was supposed to be in the journalistic narrative) but had such a general indifference to life as to exhibit an attitude, as a federal case cited by Andy puts it, akin to ”opening the door of the lions' cage in the zoo.”

The near impossibility of establishing this crime beyond a reasonable doubt was evident when the affidavit was first revealed. The allegations purportedly establishing depraved indifference were not true (as we’ve seen when witness after witness has blown up in the state’s case) and at any rate don’t make for depraved indifference. What’s worse, the prosecutor intentionally omitted known facts that are the essence of reasonable doubt, in fact making the charge itself ludicrous. Legal self-defense expert Andrew Branca has the definitive debunking of the affidavit and the trial disasters for the prosecution that should be read in full, but an excerpt is sufficient to show the “Grand Canyon” between what has been shown and what must be shown for a conviction:

That affidavit claimed that "Martin attempted to run home but was followed by Zimmerman". But this cannot be true, because if Martin had indeed run home it would have been impossible--based on the times and distances involved--for the older, clinically obese Zimmerman to catch up to him before he secured safety.

The affidavit claimed that "Zimmerman disregarded the police dispatcher['s alleged instruction to not follow] and continued to follow Martin". This also is known not to be true, because alleged instruction never occurred. The affidavit goes on to claim that "Zimmerman confronted Martin." Another untruth, as testified to this past week by Rachel Jeantel, who claims to have overheard, by cell phone, the brief confrontational speech between the two men.

Worst of all, however, is the fact that ALL of these foundational claims of the affidavit for probable cause were known to be untrue at the time . . .

** snip **

The jury, as we know from long and tragic experience, may convict anyway, but only if the jurors catch the vengeance fever and mimic the blithe disregard for facts and legal standards that has gripped most of the media.