Trial by jury: 5 white women, 1 minority decided Trayvon Martin was not murdered by George Zimmerman. Lin-Jay Harry-Voglezon. MJoTA 2013 v7n2 p0716
I was immediately skeptical when I first learned that a jury of five
white women and one Hispanic woman were the arbiters in Trayvon Martin
case.
The pattern of American history illustrates that with a White
only jury, irrespective of how clearly
evidence supports the legal and or moral rightness of the Black victim,
the White perpetrator is always exonerated or given the benefit of the
doubt.
The history shows too that there is a pattern of White
prosecutors failing to be as thorough, diligent, and surgical in their
presentations in defense of black victims, as they are capable of. The
outcome of this case suggests that the interpretation and application of
legal justice is still significantly racially skewed.
Was the
jury reasonable in its decision?
Did the prosecutors perform to the
best of their abilities?
These questions are worthy of thought.
There
was enough indisputable evidence to convict Zimmerman at least on
manslaughter. How it was argued is debatable.
But a jury has the right
to dismiss unreasonable doubts such as those created by the defense. A
jury is also entitled to an independent interpretation of the facts in
the interest of truth and justice. The arguments of a prosecutor and
defense are only guides to interpretation.
My law professors
used to say, that with difficult issues, the standard question must
always be "what would the reasonable man think?" Is it reasonable for a
watchman to become a vigilante towards an individual whose conduct is
not threatening? Is it reasonable to conclude that a person has criminal
intent or is a suspect because he is Black, athletic and wearing a
hoodie? If such conclusion is unreasonable, is that unreasonableness an
element of depraved thinking? Is it reasonable for an innocent person to
be fearful on knowing that a stranger is stalking him? What would a
reasonable person do when he is stalked by a stranger without just
cause? Does a watchman have the legal right to stalk anyone without just
cause, or on the basis of his imagination? There are many questions
that could be asked and answered that would expose and diminish those
unreasonable doubts which are presented as reasonable doubts. As the
unreasonable doubts are diminished the evidence for conviction becomes
clearer. In real life though, because of the subjective propensities of
man, what is reasonable for one cultural/racial group is not necessarily
so for another. That is why it is unjust in the first place for a jury
and other legal actors in a case, to be culturally or racially
monolithic when the defendants and accused are from different cultural
or racial backgrounds.
The spirit of a law is as important as
the words of a law. The statutory and or common laws of self defense
were never intended for stupid or extraneous interpretation and
application. They exist to protect individuals from unjustifiable
aggression; deter invasion of personal and other spaces, etc. Would a
reasonable man exonerate an unjustifiable aggressor, who pursued an
individual, gets the worse of the exchanges, then kills the individual
and claim self defense? Was the law constructed to protect aggressors?
Was Trayvon Martin an aggressor or target?
Even if we argue
that at some point, Zimmerman stopped being the pursuer and became the
pursued, at what point did that happen? None of the explanations
provided by Zimmerman makes factual sense. Why? The reasonable man
would recognize that they cannot make practical sense because Zimmerman
was covering up his illegal actions. Truth becomes convoluted only when
facts are hidden. The more this case is thought through, the more one
may be tempted to think that the prosecution was more influenced by the
political pressure to get the case processed in court than by the
pressure to obtain a conviction. The doubts created by the defense might
appear reasonable and influential for their unreasonableness were
inadequately exposed and surgically diminished.
|
|
What if the jury had been all Black or all Hispanic women? and why wasn't it? Lin-Jay Harry-Voglezon. MJoTA 2013 v7n2 p0716
Just
imagine the implications and the nature of the debate had the jury been
constituted only with Black or Hispanic women.
If we could accept that
it is ok to have an only White jury in this sensitive case then it could
also be okay to have an all Black or
Hispanic jury.
To my mind neither would be appropriate because facts are
one thing but interpretation or application is another. The breadth and
depth we give to interpretation and application of law for instance,
like all other things in our lives, are informed by our cultural minds.
The cultural minds of Whites, Blacks and Hispanics are not totally the
same. Their conditions of survival and belief systems, may they be
economic, social, political, racial, etc. are generally dissimilar.
A
jury can only reflect the common conscience of a society when it is
reasonably diversified. This same understanding could be applied to
different sectors of the legal system, may it be investigators,
prosecutors etc. It may not be surprising for instance, if an objective
evaluation finds that the prosecution failed to be as surgical as it is
capable of because it was consciously or unconsciously constrained to be
politically and or culturally correct.
|
Dispatcher:
Sanford Police Department. ...
Zimmerman: Hey we've had some break-ins in my neighborhood, and there's a real suspicious guy, uh, ......This guy looks like he's up to no good, or he's on drugs or something. It's raining and he's just walking around, looking about.
Dispatcher: OK, and this guy is he white, black, or Hispanic?
Zimmerman: He looks black.
Dispatcher: Did you see what he was wearing?
Zimmerman: Yeah. A dark hoodie, like a grey hoodie, and either jeans or sweatpants and
white tennis shoes. He's [unintelligible], he was just staring...
Dispatcher: OK, he's just walking around the area...
Zimmerman: ...looking at all the houses.
Dispatcher: OK...
Zimmerman: Now he's just staring at me.
...........
Dispatcher: That's the clubhouse, do you know what the--he's near the clubhouse right now?
Zimmerman: Yeah, now he's coming towards me.
Dispatcher: OK.
Zimmerman: He's got his hand in his waistband. And he's a black male.
Dispatcher: How old would you say he looks?
Zimmerman: He's got button on his shirt, late teens.
Dispatcher: Late teens ok.
Zimmerman: Somethings wrong with him. Yup, he's coming
to check me out, he's got something in his hands, I don't know what his deal
is.
Dispatcher: Just let me know if he does anything ok
Zimmerman: How long
until you get an officer over here?
Dispatcher: Yeah we've got someone on the
way, just let me know if this guy does anything else.
Zimmerman: Okay. These
assholes they always get away.
Parts of transcript
of George Zimmerman's Call to Police
copied from that contributed
by: Sam Baldwin, Mother Jones
|
|
