If you read on, that's not what Sheaffer said. But, in any case, have the standards for "journalists" sunk so low that they no longer understand even the rudiments of our legal system. The prosecutor doesn't HAVE to PROVE ANYTHING in order to CHARGE a suspect. That's why we have trials. After charging him, the FBI may need to demonstrate it has a reasonable basis for the charge, but that is a long, long way from "proving the hate crime".
But this idiot's undereducated readers will now assume that if Zimmermann is charged then the case has been proved. Idiots!
I took the article to mean they had to prove the crime to convict him, even though, yes, they said charge. That’s not true, either, though. There’s no such thing as proving a charge, only a standard of guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
But you’re right, charging is a much, much lower standard still. Some crimes, capital or otherwise infamous ones, demand a grand jury, but I don’t know if that’s the case here. Certainly grand juries don’t demand you prove anything. They’re pretty easygoing, and side with the prosecution overwhelmingly.
They have the msnbc edited 911 tape as proof that it was a hate crime. Ignore that the editing was to show his gilt, under the current attorney general, that is all that is needed. If he doesn’t have the evidence he will manufacture it or use something faked instead,