The miscarriage of justice in the Trayvon Martin trial resulted from two causalities.
First the prosecuting council was totally inept. Using
’s laws the
attorneys should have focused on Martin’s right to stand his ground when being
stalked, confronted, and threatened with deadly force by George Zimmerman. Florida
The prosecuting attorneys seemed to have no real understanding of establishing legal precedence, but instead floundered around in a morass of racism accusations, character assassinations, who was on top, and who was speaking during cell phone conversations. For most of the trial it seemed the prosecutors were substantiating the claims of the defendant.
Not even a great lawyer, but just a competent lawyer should have been able to bring in a verdict against Zimmerman.
The verdict outcome totally rest on the incompetence of the prosecution.
Secondly, I have served on a jury and can testify how reckless it is to leave life and death decisions to people picked at random from the general public and agreed upon by two attorneys with varying degrees of competence. Perhaps in theory ‘a jury of your peers’ sounds reasonable. But you should remember that half of the general public fall on the back side of the intelligence bell curve. At least half of the jury members are ill-informed; have no legal background; and are pissed off they are missing their reality shows. Most juries can be swayed and persuaded by who ever is the best courtroom evangelist.
If ever in the unfortunate situation of appearing in court and expecting justice to be served – especially if you are expecting a legally based decision – it would be advisable to avoid a jury trial and appear before a judge: and even that could be crap shoot.