By Rich Galen
Monday, July 15, 2013
We often hear about a "miscarriage of justice"
but rarely a "carriage of justice." As much as we call people inept,
we never say someone is really, really, etp.
Okay, but there's no such word as "ept," so
that doesn't count.
The national news corps was all a-twitter when the jury
came back with its not guilty verdict in the George Zimmerman trial for the
death of Trayvon Martin.
Too many of them expressed everything from disappointment
to outright shock at the result.
I realize life is passing me by and the notion of a
reporter without an agenda is as outdated as an 8-track player connected to a
AM-only radio in a car with bench seats and white walls.
I get that.
But what I don't get is a bunch of people who were not in
the courtroom and probably only watched snippets of the trial deciding that
they knew how this was all supposed to turn out, and an acquittal was not it.
None of these people would have been allowed on the jury
because they had made up their mind that Zimmerman was guilty before he was even
arrested and charged.
Speaking of the jury, the all-woman jury consisted of
five Whites and one Hispanic. This, according to Fox News legal analyst Tamara
Holder, was fraught with danger because the jury didn't match the racial makeup
of Seminole County and "The George Zimmerman prosecution and defense teams
should have considered the potential for such a response in this case, because
race was at issue from the outset."
Everything I know about jury trials I learned from
watching Law & Order episodes and covering Municipal Court as a young
reporter in Marietta, Ohio. But I know this: A defense attorney that
potentially damages his client's chances for a fair trial by choosing less than
the best jurors he can is likely to lose his license.
At the beginning of the trial, Zimmerman's lawyer Don
West told his infamous knock-knock joke about the difficulty in finding jurors
who had not already made up their mind because they'd read and heard so much
about the case:
Knock, knock.
Who's there?
George Zimmerman.
George Zimmerman who?
Alright good, you're on the jury.
The legal geniuses on the cable chat shows called for
West's head because the jury didn't laugh.
Now that Zimmerman has been acquitted on the charge of
2nd degree murder, that same crowd is calling for the prosecutors' collective
heads because they couldn't prove 2nd degree murder.
But if the State's Attorneys had chosen to charge
Zimmerman with a case they might have been able to prove, like manslaughter,
they would have been pilloried for not charging him with 2nd degree murder.
The only time I watched any part of this trial (not
counting the verdict announcement which I watched only because Fox broke into
the Nats-Marlins game to carry it) was while I was on the elevator in my office
building.
I work on the 5th floor so we're talking maybe 15, 20
seconds at a time.
This is why I am opposed to cameras in the courtroom:
They add nothing to the administration of justice. Cameras in court only
provide fodder for legal voyeurs, most of whom have a legal background limited
to whining about a parking ticket.
The American legal system is far from perfect. This case
is a good example: For the most part the only person who actually knew what
happened, George Zimmerman, didn't testify. The other witnesses testified to
what they think they saw or heard or what they wanted to have heard or seen.
In the end there were only six people on the planet who
had a say in how the trial was going to come out: the jury.
You and I don't have to like the result, but we didn't
have a vote.
Neither did the national press corps.
No comments:
Post a Comment