Sunday, July 14, 2013

Newest Fox News piece: "We never should have witnessed a Zimmerman trial"

Here is the way my piece started:
The George Zimmerman case should never have been brought. Saturday night after the “not guilty” verdict was delivered, State Attorney Angela Corey justified bringing the case “to put the facts out there.” But criminal cases should never be brought simply to put the facts before the public.
No one should be charged with a crime unless prosecutors themselves really believe that the person committed a crime.
Yet, the prosecution and their own experts’ language consistently showed a lack of certainty. Prosecutors aren’t supposed to bring cases where the best they can say is that something might “possibly” have happened or that there was a “chance” that it did. . . .


Thursday, July 11, 2013

Newest Fox News piece: "Trayvon Martin's testimony wouldn't have changed anything in Zimmerman trial"

My Fox News piece starts this way:
In the days since 17-year-old Trayvon Martin was shot and killed by 28-year-old George Zimmerman, a common claim has been: "we will never know what happened between Zimmerman and Martin since the only person who knows the truth and is still alive is  Zimmerman."  
But this statement is not accurate.  The closing arguments in Zimmerman's case start today.  And the truth is, we know a lot about what happened on that fateful night. Trayvon Martin's testimony, could he have spoken, wouldn't changed anything. 
For those who have watched the trial, ask yourself: is there even one piece of convincing evidence that Zimmerman did not act to defend himself from a threat of “imminent death or great bodily harm”? 
There is a reason that the local District Attorney refused to bring the case against Zimmerman and an outside District Attorney had to be brought in to handle it. And that the chief of police was also removed from his job because he refused to charge Zimmerman with a crime. Also consider that the lead detective on the case told the jury he believed Zimmerman's version of the events that happened. . . .


Friday, July 5, 2013

My newest piece at Fox News: "The Zimmerman trial is already over"

I have a hard time even seeing why the defense needs to present its own case here.  From Fox News:
Prosecutors in the George Zimmerman second degree murder trial have pushed hard on two points as they seek to make their case against him: that the injuries to Zimmerman on the night Trayvon Martin died were “insignificant” and that he had studied Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law in a college class in 2010. 
To win conviction on second-degree murder, the prosecution has to show that the death was caused by a criminal act “demonstrating a depraved mind without regard for human life.”   
That’s why the prosecutor keeps pushing the claim that Zimmerman profiled Martin because he was black. Meanwhile, the lesser charge of manslaughter generally is a crime that's been committed in the heat of passion, where there is no premeditation. The jury would have to believe Zimmerman lost his temper in shooting Martin. . . .