Why Even Try Zimmerman

We are five days into the trial of George Zimmerman's killing of Trayvon Martin.

So far, there have been no major material differences between what eye/ear witnesses have said before and are saying now.

It is uncontroverted that:
-Martin, a 17 year old visiting his father's home in Florida, went out for skittles and soda on a rainy evening.
-Zimmerman, a neighborhood watchman, spotted Martin, and profiled him as suspicious.
-There had been a rash of burglaries in the neighborhood, and on several previous occasions, "these F...ing a..holes always get away" when Zimmerman called 911.
-Zimmerman called 911 and proceeded to follow Martin. He was instructed not to by the 911 dispatcher. There is, however, no law mandating he obey the dispatcher.
-Martin, who was on the phone, noticed he was being followed and sought to "lose" Zimmerman.
-Zimmerman pursued and found Martin, while Martin was still on the phone.
-Martin asked why he was being followed, Zimmerman asked Martin what he was doing.
-several persons thereafter heard sounds of struggle.
-Several persons heard repeated cries for help, some seeing one man atop the other.
-A gunshot from Zimmerman blew through Martin's heart, killing him.
-The best eyewitness says, with uncertainty, Martin was above Zimmerman, punishing him. This is corroborated by Zimmerman's injuries, and Martin's lack of any injuries except for the bullet which took his life.
-Zimmerman was found with a bleeding broken nose, bleeding on the back of his skull, with several blunt trauma markings.

At this point, every lawyer practicing criminal defense must ask this question: "Why did the State of Florida try this case as 2nd degree homicide?"

To this point, the prosecutions witnesses have established that Martin did confront Zimmerman, there was a fight and just before the gunshot, someone cried for help several times. They have not established who started it, or who called for help. They have a fight, calling for help, and a gunshot.

This is not enough evidence for a conviction for 2nd degree murder. Why? Because the standard of proof is that jurors must know what happened beyond a reasonable doubt in order to convict. Specifically, they must know beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman killed Martin, and that Zimmerman did so without fearing for his life.

The error isn't charging Zimmerman, the error is what they charged Zimmerman with. 2nd Degree murder? Should've been a manslaughter charge. They could have won that case. Zimmerman would have taken that offer because of the real possibility of losing. But, prosecutors stuck to their guns, and wanted 2nd degree homicide, a charge, it appears, they always knew they could not win.

At best, the prosecution has established, Zimmerman may not have been justified. "May" is not a conviction.

If the witnesses testimony was known before trial, then why would any decent prosecutor try this case, knowing it was a loser?

Prosecution is subject to political pressure. That is why. This was not originally charged because prosecutor's investigated and heard the testimony that we have, and decided, Zimmerman may not have been justified, but it is impossible to prove.

But then the media came in and began race baiting. And then all the race baiters on either side, like Sharpton and Jackson, whose disrepute is known to all but the most ignorant, threatened civil unrest unless something was done.

So it is being done. Trayvon Martin is getting his day in court. But nobody who knew the facts beforehand, including the prosecution, really believed this was a winnable case.

The defense hasn't even had their turn yet, and the prosecution's evidence tends to convince most people that Martin confronted Zimmerman, got the upperhand, proceeded to beat Zimmerman, Zimmerman called out for help, not getting any, he shot Martin.

This case is imperiling Zimmerman simply to satisfy those who cannot bring themselves to believe that this was a stupid tragedy resulting from the stupid actions of both parties. Zimmerman should not have followed Martin, certainly not engaged him, and, in my opinion, should not have shot him even though he was being beat up. Martin, for his part, should never have attacked Zimmerman. And if he didn't attack Zimmerman, he certainly should have stopped once he gained the advantage described by several witnesses...pounding Zimmermans head into the pavement.

The trial is a show.
It imperils ZImmerman and threatens to compound senseless tragedy with injustice.

I believe Zimmerman profiled Martin because of his age and race. I think Martin compounded this impression with his behavior. It think Zimmerman was wrong. But, once attacked by Martin, Zimmerman had a right to defend himself with lethal force. That doesn't make it ok in my book, but it does make it legal.