Prosecutors should have charged George Zimmerman with manslaughter instead of second-degree murder or, if possible, charged manslaughter as a lesser-included offense. The capias (PDF file, via CNN) issued by the State Attorney only charged second-degree murder, which requires proof of a “depraved mind regardless of human life.” The problem with that is that the only real evidence of the circumstances of the confrontation between Zimmerman and Martin comes from Zimmerman himself. It was not difficult for the defense team to demonstrate reasonable doubt about Zimmerman’s “depraved mind.” Manslaughter, while carrying far lesser penalties, would have been a slam dunk, most likely.
Florida attorney Roberto Martinez offered a good summary of how the undisputed evidence would have supported a charge of manslaughter, concluding as follows:
The man’s actions created a course of conduct that led to a dangerous situation: the physical confrontation and the fight. The dangerous situation subjected the man and the teen to the risk of death or injury, as the man was carrying a loaded gun.
Manslaughter is defined as: “The killing of a human being by the . . . culpable negligence of another, without lawful justification . . . ”
Does the evidence support a finding of guilty of manslaughter beyond a reasonable doubt?
I believe it does. But for the man’s negligence in carrying a loaded gun and chasing and pursuing the teen, after being told not to by the police, there would have been no physical confrontation and the teen would be alive.
No reasonably careful person would do what the man did, and that should be obvious to everyone.
Now it’s too late, as the double jeopardy clause prevents the state from prosecuting Zimmerman further (except for possible federal civil rights charges).
Some people, I’m sure, will view the acquittal as vindication, but the verdict simply means that Zimmerman is “not guilty” of second-degree murder, not that he is “innocent” of any wrongdoing. Of course, police and prosecutors can abuse that legal distinction, but it seems apt here.
This case has demonstrated some serious problems with legal standards of “self-defense,” and the case has put “stand your ground” laws around the country under scrutiny. As far as I can tell, Martin had ever justification to confront the strange man following him. Any way of looking at this case, it seems clear that Zimmerman provoked the encounter between the two. Anything beyond that is like to remain speculation. Emily Bazelon at Slate remarks:
In Florida, a person “who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked” has no duty to retreat. He or she has the right to “meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.” The jury could have faulted Zimmerman for starting the altercation with Martin and still believed him not guilty of murder, or even of manslaughter, which in Florida is a killing that has no legal justification. If the jury believed that once the physical fight began, Zimmerman reasonably feared he would suffer a grave bodily injury, then he gets off for self-defense.
Of course, none of this even scratches the surface of the racial issues that permeate the case.
A Connecticut case from a few months ago offers a good analogy. Basically, a man was acquitted of rape based, according to the media, on the lack of evidence that the victim fought back. What most news reports left out was that prosecutors only charged the defendant with one offense, which specifically addressed sexual assault against a person who, do to disability or unconsciousness, was *unable* to resist. Because the victim did not meet that legal requirement, the jury acquitted. The mistake was the prosecutor’s, for only charging him under a statute that narrowly-defined the offense, probably because it was a bigger felony than the alternative. The prosecutor could have indicted under that state and the lesser felony of sexual assault, but didn’t. I don’t think anyone doubted that the man committed rape, but , as Ken at Popehat says, “the state has to prove that you’re guilty of the specific crime you’re charged with to put you in prison” (emphasis in original). The same could be said of the Zimmerman trial.
