ZIMMERMAN VERDICT PART 12: RATING THE LAWYERS (PROSECUTION)

While there were two lawyers at the defense table, there were three at the State’s: Bernie de la Rionda, John Guy, and Richard Mantei. With about a hundred lawyers to pick from, knowing her office would be in the spotlight, State’s Attorney Angela Corey wouldn’t have put anyone on the team she thought would make her look bad.

Mantei was third chair, and the lowest guy on the totem pole gets the scut work in any organization. For instance, he was the one they sent in to argue that the state had proven its case when it hadn’t during the argument for judgment of acquittal. Perhaps the two senior guys didn’t want to be on film forever BS-ing the judge. I suspect Mantei is a good prosecutor when he actually has a case.

The lead prosecutor in the courtroom was de la Rionda. He’s the only one of the three I’ve seen live in a courtroom, and I can tell you that he knows the law and presents himself with articulate confidence. De la Rionda is said to have an extraordinarily high conviction rate. Why he accepted a case like this, as close as he is to retirement age, I cannot understand. His frustration was obvious throughout the Zimmerman trial; I can’t imagine a man with his skill and experience being so abrasive in front of a jury for any other reason.

I don’t think they had a choice. Once the public relations campaign elevated the incident to national attention, the behind the scenes manipulation had an easy job of getting cameo appearances from Obozo and Holder. The lynching was greased in every way possible.

Unfortunately for the prosecution they still needed evidence. That never existed.

A reply to the article, at the link

from the beginning, this case had three hot-button issues.

First, a 17-year old minor was killed by an adult.

Second, an armed person shot and killed an unarmed person.

Third, the involved parties were of different races.
Given all these hot-button issues, the initial prosecutor should have never, never, never undertaken to make the decision to not prosecute Zimmerman on his own volition. By doing so, he provided the race-mongers and media all the ammunition they needed to decry a “miscarrage of justice”. A prosecutor must not merely see that justice is done but he must also do so in a way that reassures the public that justice was done.
What he should have done is walk this case directly to a Grand Jury with a tentative charge of manslaughter against Zimmerman. Then he should have laid out the facts of the case, in a fair manner, to the Grand Jury and let them decide. My guess is that a Grand Jury, after looking at the evidence, would have “No Billed” Zimmerman on the grounds of self-defence. Either way, this action would have sucked the wind from the sails of the race-mongers and media.

That would have seemed scandalous to us at the time, but - in hindsight - that just might have defused this case.

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.