I think that Martin's mom got it right when she said: "I believe it was an accident. I believe that it just got out of control and he couldn't turn the clock back." That doesn't exonerate Zimmerman, but it also confirms that it isn't murder 1. Unfortunately, she then had a spokesperson clarify that comment with this: "When I referenced the word 'accident' today with regard to Trayvon's death, in NO way did I mean the shooting was an accident ... My son was profiled, followed and murdered by George Zimmerman, and there was nothing accidental about that," she said, clarifying that the "accident" was that Martin and Zimmerman ever crossed paths." Her instinct is to heal but there are other forces at work that want her to keep the pressure on.

The media scrutiny of mortals who aren't trained to deal with it and suffering from extreme grief has got to be more intense than we can imagine. I wish her peace and suggest that she find solace outside of the media/political circus that will continue to ensue.

I have been talking with Neal on this issue. I withdraw all frustration with the parents. My issue is with the people surrounding this issue with their own agenda on both sides. (Sharpton)

I care a darn sight less about Sharpton than the parents, but in the post you did lump them all together:

My point is this...
It appears that the parents and Rev. Sharpton and the media are happy that the prosecutor charged Zimmerman.

so I'm not 'focused' on them, I'm just responding to your own statements.

It was the parents who started the whole protest off, for obvious reasons (bereavement has an effect), and unlike some, I am not too interested in the agendas of the media, or Rev Al, but in the main question at hand -

Don't the victims of crime, and their families, deserve effective justice?

And - did SYG interfere with that process?

Now, you can sneer all you like at other people, but you appear to be forgetting the real human beings at the centre of the tragedy.

bbauska wrote:Does anyone have an idea why not using the grand jury is the right thing? Perhaps the evidence would not bear a grand jury?

Arch? Your expertise area could shed some light...

It could be any number of reasons.

Evidence is very clear and convincing so no need for the cover of a grand jury to prefer charges, or
Evidence is so weak she would be unable to convince the grand jury of the need for charges, or
She doesn't want to let the defense know what their trial strategy will be before discovery, or
Witnesses would be subjected to cross examination by the grand jurors.

The biggest difference between the two is the amoung of evidence the prosecutor must present. In a Grand Jury the defense does not put on a case so the prosecutor must be impartial and provide all evidence. Even that which may prove the accused not guilty(aka exculpatory evidence).

In a preliminary hearing a prosecutor must only provide enough evidence to show there is probable cause to take the case to trial. The proscutor does not have to present the exculpatory evidence.

So in Zimmerman, there is a strong possibilty there is enough evidence to make probable cause before a judge but enough exculpatory evidence to place a grand jury indictment in question. Alternatively, it could be a prosecutor with higher political aspirations wanting to be seen making the tough call.

The prosecutor has a track record of rarely invoking a grand jury. I would take from this that she trusts her judgement generally and, especially in this case, doesn't require the cover of the Grand Jury to take responsibility for laying the charges.

Bbauska, if this case gets past the preliminary hearing it would mean that everyone who claimed that the initial police work, and the intial judgement by the States Attorney's office were right. Period.
Without that media out cry, even Sharpton, there would not have been pressure on the Governor to convene a special prosecutor. Without a special prosecutor..... what do you think the resolution of this would be?

Right where the prosecutor thought it should have been.

Could somebody explain to me what you mean by 'grand jury' ? I presume this must be some kind of pre-trial procedure rather than a murder trial heard only be a judge, but it's a term I'm not familiar with.

From my vast experience of US Law (ie: living with someone who watched every Law and Order episode she can), the grand jury is a group of jurors, usually larger than 12 who are presented with evidence by a prosecutor and then decide on whether to accept a particular charge.

Not sure of the rules such as whether it is a simple majority or not, whether a prosecutor can simply come back with a different charge or new evidence later on etc. The TV series tends to gloss over such things.. But I think it only allows a charge and arrest warrant, so there would still need to be an arraignment in front of a judge.

Either way, a murder trial will always have a jury unless of course the defendent waives their right or pleads out.

A Grand Jury is a body of citizens that decides whether there is enough evidence charge a person with a felony and proceed to trial. A Grand Jury usually has a larger number of Jurors. On the Federal level the size is between 16-23. A Grand Jury hears evidence presented by the Prosecutor and then vote on whether charges should be brought.

Because it is a some what investigative procedure, the Grand Jury can subpeona witness testimony and other types of evidence. The target of the Grand Jury is not usually not present in the room and witnesses do not have the right to have an attorney present in the room with them. Witnesses who refuse to testify can be held in criminal contempt of court. Further, Grand Jury proceeding are usual secret in order to protect the Jurors and targets (if no charges are prefered against the target, no one should now about the Grand Jury.)

I believe the U.S. is the only nation to still use the Grand Jury. The 5th Amendment says that

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger

so I believe the only way to be charged with a felony is via a Grand Jury on the federal level. However, the 5th has not been incorpated via the 14th on to the states so only a few states use them (I believe around 20) and in some of those states, it is at the discretion of the Prosecutor on whether tp proceed via a Grand Jury or a preliminary hearing.

Alan Dershowitz was on Hardball with Michael Smerconish last night and he ripped the Prosecutor apart. He said the affidavit of probable cause doesn't show probable cause and should be thrown out by any competent judge. Further he called her unethical for over charging Zimmerman. She is nothing more then a politician looking for the P.R.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/ns/ ... /#47034974

Archduke Russell John wrote:Alan Dershowitz was on Hardball with Michael Smerconish last night and he ripped the Prosecutor apart. He said the affidavit of probable cause doesn't show probable cause and should be thrown out by any competent judge. Further he called her unethical for over charging Zimmerman. She is nothing more then a politician looking for the P.R.

Well, of course we all know that Mr Dershowitz would never, ever, stoop to politicking and is merely speaking as a disinterested legal expert...

Perhaps he should wait for the judge to actually review the affadavit and accompanying evidence (not all of which will be available to Mr Dershowitz)?

After all we all agreed here that the best thing was for the law to take it's course, and a few of us have been clear that media interference (and the use of the media by blowhards who are pushing a particular agenda) is not helpful.

I think that Dershowitz comes across very well on that clip. This is his area of expertise. I don't detect either conservative or liberal ideology, in particular. (He sounds like the Canadian and Brits on these boards by criticizing that only in the US system are these matters handled by elected party officials.) I believe he is suggesting that Murder 2 requires no reasonable doubt which will be hard to prove whereas manslaughter would have made more sense as a charge because it does not appear that anyone (aside from Zimmerman) precisely knows what started the physical altercation and what was going on the moment that Martin was shot. But yes, let's allow the law to take it's course ...

Ray Jay wrote:I think that Dershowitz comes across very well on that clip. This is his area of expertise.

I understand that, but I don't understand his suggestion that an affadavit from the prosecution outlining the probable cause has to give 'all' of the facts. If they went to a Grand Jury, yes. When it goes to court, the defence can challenge it, can present their own evidence and crucially, will have full disclosure from the prosecution guaranteed by law.

So why does the affadavit have to open the door for the defence?

I don't detect either conservative or liberal ideology, in particular. (He sounds like the Canadian and Brits on these boards by criticizing that only in the US system are these matters handled by elected party officials.)

It's not the ideology of his statements here. It's the general history of partisan-ship that Dershowitz as displayed in the past.

He's seen the affadavit. He hasn't seen the actual evidence behind it.

I believe he is suggesting that Murder 2 requires no reasonable doubt which will be hard to prove whereas manslaughter would have made more sense as a charge because it does not appear that anyone (aside from Zimmerman) precisely knows what started the physical altercation and what was going on the moment that Martin was shot.

Well, the audio evidence will probably be crucial. If it was Martin crying for help, it would suggest that whoever started it, Zimmerman had the upper hand.

But yes, let's allow the law to take it's course ...

Please. I'm so glad our legal system is protected by sub judice and contempt laws.

danivon wrote:Well, the audio evidence will probably be crucial. If it was Martin crying for help, it would suggest that whoever started it, Zimmerman had the upper hand.

Well, no one has said it was Martin though. Sorry, actually his mother, upon listening to the 911 tapes had hearing someone calling in the back ground said that was her son.

The expert who made the comments about the voice comparison ran the 911 recordings of the neighbor calling in about the struggle which included the crys for help and Zimmerman's call through a computer program to compare the two. It came back with a 48% match. Further, this expert said he did not run any comparison to Martin's voice because he had no recordings of Martin's voice.

Now I have read there were 2 eyewitnesses that said they saw Martin on top of Zimmerman.

danivon wrote:I understand that, but I don't understand his suggestion that an affadavit from the prosecution outlining the probable cause has to give 'all' of the facts.

I will admit that was a surprise to me but then I am not a criminal attorney. However, it could be because the prosecution has to make it through the preliminary hearing which means they have to show that given all the information known, it as a possible chance at conviction. If the prosecution knows of a reason to make a conviction an improbability, they have a duty to inform the defense and the judge.

On the voice analysis, the same expert said he'd need over 90% to make a match. I wonder what the match would be for a random male from Florida.

Eyewitnesses? We'll see on that, I guess.