Race. Or Juries? Or Crappy Prosectuion?



All Failed by the System.

This isn’t about Race. This is about the laws in Florida, the Jury System, the prosecution and defense lawyers and the Constitution. Not about GZ or TM.

Something happens. A crime is charged. A District Attorney or Grand Jury, of both, agree there is enough evidence of a crime to prosecute. Now here is the clue, folks, that we live in America: Innocent until Proven Guilty. By a Jury. INNOCENT OF WRONG DOING. Get it?
So, the prosecution gathers evidence and the defense gathers evidence. Here is Florida Jury instructions, in part:

To overcome the defendant’s presumption of innocence the state has the

burden of proving that the crime was committed and the defendant
committed the crime.
It is to the evidence introduced in this trial, and to it alone that you are to
look for the proof.
The defendant is not required to present evidence or to prove anything.

 So, the prosecution must define the crime, then prove beyond a reasonable doubt the accused committed the crime.

In the GZ vs TM case, the prosecution chose to prosecute the wrong crime. The Jury unanimously found reasonable doubt on all the charges and found “not guilty”.  Carping about what should have been the outcome, or was GZ a bad man, or was TM just an innocent kid should not be the issue. The issue is did GZ do what he was charged with? The Jury said “NO” loud and clear.

Now the dissection of what a million people think happened goes on, and has no end in sight. For God’s sake folks, people are still debating the OJ thing. This never ends. But, say what you want, in the eyes of the Law, a person found “not guilty” is INNOCENT.

Maybe you could vent your hostility on, oh, the current trafficking of slaves? Or, maybe the morons who deny climate change? Continue pushing the moral lessons of this event with the hopes that things may get better some day. But don’t subvert the system by second guessing the Jury. Say “The Prosecutors Fucked Up” (quite likely they did) but go with the Jury. Lawyers around the country repeatedly say that juries have an uncanny way of seeing the “doubt” in cleaver arguments. Lobby to change the laws or even the Constitution, but move on to more important things. Life is too short.

Image: http://wordsofthesentient.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/innocence-project.gif

Reasonable doubt: http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/flsupct/SC00-906/00-906comments5.pdf