Out of Town Today

I told myself I was not going to write anything any the Zimmerman trial and verdicts.  I probably shouldn't, but I suppose I have read just one too many comments about how the "justice system" failed us.

There is no doubt that Zimmerman did some very stupid things. If proving stupidity were the sole basis for any crime, there wouldn't be a prosecutor in the country with less than a 98% conviction rate.

A jury's job is to make a decision based on the evidence presented at trial as applied to the law as instructed by the judge.  The standard is beyond a reasonable doubt, when looking at the evidence presented at trial. 

How many people out there have actually sat on a criminal trial jury?  

If you have, you are acutely aware of the seriousness of the instructions the court gives you.  You weighed your decision based upon that standard, beyond a reasonable doubt.  I know I did the one time I served on a jury in the federal court.  I know the other people in the room did.

Beyond a reasonable doubt means no other logical explanation can be derived from the facts in evidence except that the defendant is guilty.

I remember this story hitting the news when this first happened.  I remember my first thoughts were dumb, stupid and "manslaughter".  A snap judgment on my part, but my initial judgment the same.  After my limited reading and viewing the testimony of the prosecution's case, there was plenty of doubt about the second degree murder charge.

The fact that the prosecution made the move to add manslaughter for jury consideration only highlighted that fact, and the attempt to throw on the "third degree" murder charge only served to further highlight just what a weak case the prosecution realized it had.  

You might ask yourself why the manslaughter charge didn't stick.  My guess, the "degree" of the manslaughter charge.  The prosecution again decide to go with a charge that involved "intent".  

I don't pretend to be a criminal law expert, but it seemed to me that an "involuntarily" manslaughter charge would have been pretty close to a slam dunk conviction, but at the point when manslaughter was put on the table it was to late to do it.  

Stupidity would have been part of an involuntary manslaughter charge.  Zimmerman's reckless acts, and in my mind there were more than a few, could have been punishable, and probably would have been.  

There seems to be a blurred distinction between justice and vengeance.  

Again, there were some dumb and simply reckless acts on the part of Zimmerman.  That much was in fact proved at trial, in my opinion.  Zimmerman was not tried for those acts.  He was tried under the believe his acts were intentional under the law.

If you watched that trial, if you understand the crimes and the elements of the crimes charged, and you believe the prosecution proved its case, than all I can suggest if you ever face a jury, make sure your lawyer objects to anyone sitting on the jury that you consider a true peer.

Would an involuntary manslaughter charge have satisfied those seeking "justice"?  

A question impossible to answer at this point.