Zimmerman: Alternate Juror E-54 Would Have Voted to Acquit

Alternate Juror No. E-54 would have voted to acquit George Zimmerman. He was interviewed by Fox News. Here is the video.

Juror E-54 says the non-emergency call was the best evidence for George Zimmerman. There was no evidence Zimmerman profiled Martin. There was no evidence of ill will.

Zimmerman's injuries were a significant factor in his conclusion GZ should be acquitted. [More...]

Rachel Jeantel's call times suggest Travyon went to his father's house and came back up to the T.

This wasn't a civil rights case.

Bottom line:

“I really focused on the witnesses, the questioning…I didn’t want to miss anything….we didn’t do anything wrong…we interpreted the law….we reviewed the evidence…and made a decision…”

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. With each passing day, the case appears less and less like a case of monumental social and political import. There was a shooting and the evidence showed self-defense. The state misjudged how an impartial jury would view its evidence and overcharged the crime. The jury applied the law to the evidence produced at trial and acquitted.

< Zimmerman: New Support for the Verdict | Thursday Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I guess the "weaning" off the case (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Anne on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 06:33:48 AM EST
    isn't going too well, Jeralyn...hard to, I guess, when every day it seems there's something else that comes out.

    What I keep trying to tell people is, all any jury can do is render a decision based on what has been presented in court and in accordance with the law and the instructions; it isn't their job to correct the mistakes of the lawyers, or fill in the gaps in either side's case.

    While I think it's marginally interesting what any jury's thoughts were, I think that the ongoing focus on them may be a little misplaced, only because this jury could just as easily have rendered a different verdict, and then what?  Would people still be praising them or using them as proof that justice was served?  Sure - they wouldn't be the same people, but there would be people who felt that was the right decision.

    It was what it was - there were any number of things that, had they gone differently - including the actual events of that night - could have changed the outcome of this case, but I suspect that is true in almost every case wending its way through the system.

    If I had been a juror in this case, or any case that got as much media attention as this one did, I think I'd be keeping my own counsel right about now, and just looking to get back to my normal life.  They did their job, and they don't owe anyone anything more.

    This case is more about everyday America (2.00 / 8) (#37)
    by lily on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 10:52:55 AM EST
    than I think you are willing to consider.

    IMHO Trayvon Martin is not the black kid next door, he was deeply influenced by a set of standards known as street culture. The tension between gangster culture and society are present every single day particularly in tough inner cities.

    Yesterday, a black man was shot dead three blocks from my house.

    Yesterday, the black early 20s couple I reported to the police for domestic violence muttered nasty intimidating comments at me while I worked in my front yard.

    Why did I call the cops, because he had her by the throat on the ground in my garden punching her repeatedly in the face.
    And I am the problem now?

    This case has exposed a central issue who has the right to judge problematic behavior by black youth.

    Just listen to how Jeantel is now coached to explain terms to white America. Listen to the Martins message post verdict, they want to define Trayvon memory.  


    I hope they do what you would do, Anne. (none / 0) (#32)
    by melamineinNY on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 10:29:46 AM EST
    Opening statement fail (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by cboldt on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 06:59:36 AM EST
    The state depended on the NEN call for the finding of ill will, and for the finding of unfounded profiling.  At least one person on the panel found the NEN call to stand for the opposite of what the state (still) finds it as.

    So is it possible to change anyone's mind (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by Jbsnyder on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 07:53:53 AM EST
    at this point?  Obviously not the social justice bloggers, Gawker and Huffpo posters, etc.  I don't think anything could have ever changed their minds.  They had everything they needed when they first heard of this, when Trayvon was a tween and Zimmerman said "coons", and haven't shifted their opinion since.  Any support for Zimmerman is quickly labeled as racist and dismissed.

    But I mean the centrist types who get their info from the media.  I have been discussing this on my Facebook page, going into some detail on the evidence.  I'm getting a lot of response from people telling me that they are shocked and had no idea, for example, about what Zimmerman's story even was, much less that it fit the evidence so perfectly.  I think a lot of people genuinely think that this case is about a man who saw a black teenager, said he "felt threatened", and shot him.

    I've noticed that when a court case of any sort takes on a lot of propaganda value, the propagandists take the "bottom line" approach when confronted with evidence.  i.e. "bottom line is, Zimmerman killed an unarmed kid".  It's a good way to keep people from learning anything.

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Darby on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 08:50:16 AM EST
    I just had lunch with someone yesterday who was astounded to learn that Zimmerman  had any injuries!

    Probably not, but I notice a lot of people (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by leftwig on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 10:21:31 AM EST
    who misquote or blatantly ignore known facts, so maybe there are people who would change their opinion in the face of verifiable facts.  I doubt there are too many of those folks around because the facts have been available for quite some time and anyone who wanted to know them could.  

    Yes, it's possible. (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Teresa on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 12:52:02 PM EST
    My brother is staying with me and prior to the trial, he thought GZ was guilty. He watched it and now he doesn't.

    I thought he was guilty last year and didn't read about the case until jury selection. I changed my mind then, but he hadn't read that stuff (evidence from discovery here at Talkleft) so we had some pretty big arguments about this case until after around the first week or around the time the prosecution rested.

    But the public in general, who unlike the two of us, weren't able to watch the trial? I doubt it. Not unless part of our national conversation on race in this case includes someone going over the evidence to make people understand where the jury got its verdict. But that won't happen and I'm not even sure should.


    I changed my mind about the case (5.00 / 4) (#61)
    by Payaso on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 01:20:48 PM EST
    when I discovered that so many of the things we first heard about it were not true.

    TL was one of the few sites that focused on the actual evidence.


    photos (3.00 / 2) (#99)
    by Kplaids on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 08:52:25 PM EST
    I am pretty sure that the media showing pictures of an 11 year old Trayvon Martin bothered me very early and made me suspicious that there was something very wrong going on.  

    Within a month or so of the case becoming a big deal in the media I found a site that laid out that 4 minute time gap and the positions on a map of the condo complex and that was it for me:  Martin had to have doubled back.  Theres no other explanation for why the incident took place where it did, close to Zimmerman's vehicle.  Martin could have made it to Brandi Green's apartment a dozen times over but he decided to stalk Zimmerman and attack him.

    Its very strange to watch the TV commentators still avoiding the facts of the case and making up their own versions of what happened with no evidence and in contradiction to the evidence.  Its very, very dishonest.


    Face it (5.00 / 6) (#7)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 08:38:13 AM EST

    Walking aimlessly IN THE RAIN and appearing to be scoping out residences is suspicious.  That is what Zimmerman reported.  Given that it was dark, raining, and Martin was wearing a hoodie, we don't even know that Zimmerman could even guess at Martin's race at that point.

    Indeed, later when the dispatcher asked for race Zimmermsn responded with the less certain "looks black" rather than the definite "is black."


    And (3.25 / 4) (#12)
    by txantimedia on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 09:08:29 AM EST
     "looks like he's on drugs or something" which turned out to be true, although the jury didn't know that.

    Wow! That's not what I'm hearing. (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by txantimedia on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 09:02:28 AM EST
    I hang out on the Texas CHL Forum a lot.  The bulk of the discussion has been about the mistakes George made and how to avoid them, about how even when you do shoot in self defense you can be taken to trial which will cost you a fortune, about how to avoid ever getting in to such a situation.

    Not one discussion I've seen has been about relaxing gun ownership or expanding self defense.  In fact most of us were shocked to find out that Texas had a Stand Your Ground law.  None of us had ever heard it called that.

    Texas's justifiable homicide law (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Jbsnyder on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 09:08:04 AM EST
    is actually a bit insane.  You can shoot a person to stop a robbery.  A guy earlier this year was acquitted for shooting a hooker that took his money and walked off with it.  I think that's actually a bridge too far and I would support reform.

    California has expansive self defense laws too. (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Laura G on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 10:29:40 AM EST
    The great liberal state of California has one of the most expansive self defense laws in the country.  In California, you can chase your assailant down if it's necessary for your saftey.

    California stand-your-ground jury instruction:

    CALCRIM 3470, the instruction given to juries in California cases involving a defendant who says he or she acted in self-defense because of a reasonable belief that he or she was in danger of death or serious injury:

    "He or she is entitled to stand his or her ground and defend himself or herself, and, if reasonably necessary, to pursue an assailant until the danger of death or great bodily injury has passed. This is so even if safety could have been achieved by retreating".
     defense laws in the country.


    That's awful (none / 0) (#60)
    by Teresa on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 01:08:03 PM EST
    This is so even if safety could have been achieved by retreating".

    I just heard yesterday that where I live (TN) has a SYG law. I haven't looked it up yet, but I'm not very hopeful to read something sensible if California has that provision. That's terrible.


    I follow this area of law (none / 0) (#66)
    by Harold on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 01:56:23 PM EST
    But only closely for the states I live in, or more recently might carry concealed in.

    I've never heard of such a law as California's before now.  We're always told, as a general principle of US defense law, that as soon as the attack ceases we can no longer use lethal force ... even if that likely or clearly will result in our death.

    As a hypothetical, you're in an area with minimal cover, you've got a handgun or shotgun, your assaliant has a serious rifle (not a .22LR, although those are plenty deadly).  Suppose it's clear the assailant is breaking off contact only to get out of the effective range of you and your handgun, or the 100 yards or so of a shotgun.  You let him do that and you're toast if he's a halfway decent marksman.

    Anyway, I would imagine this provision of California's law is like the general one for using lethal force on an unarmed assailant: you will almost certainly end up in court and you'd better have a really convincing case (even if, in theory, outside of Ohio, the burden of proof is on the prosecutor).  E.g. a face like Zimmerman's as I was told by my Virginia concealed carry class instructor.


    Frontier Justice... (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Laura G on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 02:54:39 PM EST
    Here in California some refer to it as frontier justice.  I believe that's  how it originated.  It's been on the books for over a 100 years now via case law/precedent.

    AFTER a verbal warning (none / 0) (#15)
    by Harold on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 09:25:53 AM EST
    But, yeah, Texas is Texas.  Then again, maybe that's OK, 50 Petri dishes and all that, move to Massachusetts if you want the opposite in self-defense law and case law.

    That said, as I understand it the not all that different Oklahoma has the same law on the books, as well as others, all of which have been judicially nullified in a regression to the mean of US self-defense laws.  I for one wouldn't dare use that in Texas unless e.g. my un/insufficiently insured means of livelihood were being absconded with, someone some day will likely be the Hard Cases Make Bad Law example that changes the case law.


    Case law can't really change the Texas law (none / 0) (#19)
    by Jbsnyder on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 09:41:06 AM EST
    as it's written into the statute.

    If any case was going to change things, it would have been this one:

    [url]http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/jilted-john-acquitted-texas-prostitute-death-article-1.1365975 [/url]

    but it came at the worst possible time for it to have much of an effect.  I don't think it's used that often but I do hear something about it every few years.  

    The biggest problem with applying it to robbery, imo, is that the escape is part of the robbery.  Rape, murder, etc. are basically over when the guy is on the run, but if someone's got your wallet and they are running, they are still robbing you.  I can see why that was once the law:  homesteaders often owned very little and one robbery, of say a mule, a bull, etc., could completely ruin them.  IMO it's out of date now and encourages people to shoot other people in the back.


    Case law matters very much (none / 0) (#47)
    by Harold on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 12:21:11 PM EST
    A failure to know your state's case law can most assuredly cost you your freedom.

    E.g. my state has what you'd think is a crystal clear Castle Doctrine.  But as of 2010 when Self Defense Laws of All 50 States was published the upper courts have nullified it with their jury instructions.  Ditto for several cycles of the Massachusetts legislature passing "this time we mean it!" laws removing a duty to retreat from your residence.  I "watched" (read the Boston Globe in the early '80s) the state convict and jail a man for manslaughter because he wasn't willing to flee his residence and leave his sleeping daughter to the tender mercies of a home invader.  Yes, it really was that grim and the sleeping daughter wasn't something the state denied.


    Massachusetts (none / 0) (#119)
    by ExcitableBoy on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 05:14:07 PM EST
    isn't big on self-defense.

    Harold, a verbal warning? (none / 0) (#57)
    by Teresa on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 12:59:41 PM EST
    He warned the lady he'd shoot her if she didn't perform whatever act it was?

    I've got to draw a BIG LINE if it's ok to shoot someone who isn't a threat to you, just because you warned her.

    Is that what you're saying? Or just what others are saying, as if it's justified?


    As I understand the Texas law (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Harold on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 01:40:41 PM EST
    And for god's sake don't take this far, I haven't investigated let alone confirmed this because were I to find myself in Texas I wouldn't use it.

    Anyway, as I understand the law in Texas, if someone is walking away with your property, you can use lethal force to stop them after a verbal warning.

    I emphasized the warning because it's not just a "shoot any varmint taking your stuff" law, or so I've been told.

    I know nothing about the case in question.


    robbery is worse than theft (none / 0) (#20)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 09:43:16 AM EST
    there are 3 crimes of theft: robbery, burglary and theft.  If I recall correctly, robbery involves some use of force . . .

    that's correct (none / 0) (#21)
    by Jbsnyder on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 09:48:25 AM EST
    force or threat of force.

    It gets applied in fairly ridiculous ways, usually by the police.  For example, I had a client who was a teenager charged with robbery because he was caught shoplifting and pushed the store security guard to get out of his grip, didn't knock him down or hurt him in any way.  The robbery was dropped, thankfully.


    Also (none / 0) (#27)
    by Jbsnyder on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 10:15:43 AM EST
    I just realized I'm using the wrong law, this is the relevant one


    It actually makes a special case out of thefts committed at night.  it's a pretty weird law.


    Gun rights people (none / 0) (#33)
    by Jbsnyder on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 10:32:28 AM EST
    have been on the defensive as far as what I've seen.

    However, the right, particularly the far right, did put a lot of effort into making Trayvon a Willie Horton and that wasn't helpful.  If anything, that further entrenched the left in their belief that racism was the only thing that Zimmerman had on his side.


    that comment was deleted for falsely stating (none / 0) (#135)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Jul 20, 2013 at 12:31:47 PM EST
    that gun groups used the shooting to promote their legislative agenda and to argue more people should be armed.

    Zimmerman (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 09:36:36 AM EST

    Zimmerman profiled based on actions.  There is ZERO evidence that Zimmerman had the slightest clue as to Martin's race at that time.  Just because you really really want to believe otherwise does not make it so.


    Action profiling (none / 0) (#121)
    by ExcitableBoy on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 05:47:55 PM EST
    Zimmerman could've been lying, but in the first police interview/interrogation, he states that what first got his attention was Trayvon's hanging around on the lawn outside the house that had been broken into a couple weeks before, and that he knew to be unoccupied at the moment.

    Couldn't sleep last night and ended up watching the police interview, and the walkthrough with Serino the next day. I guess people will see what they want to see. Especially with the interview right after the shooting, I don't see a cold, calculating, lying murderer. He seems honestly clueless to me. He's a stalking killer, but he calls the cops first? He's an armed menace with evil in his heart, but he's afraid to give out his address in case Trayvon is around? Just doesn't make sense. I think he thought Trayvon split, so he wanted to see where he was headed to tell the cops. He didn't identify himself for exactly the reason he said: Trayvon caught him by surprise, so his natural response was 'I don't have a problem'.


    Action Profiling Doesn't Fly (none / 0) (#124)
    by Rjpjrca on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 06:17:25 PM EST
    The problem with the action profiling argument is that there are a lot of other explanations for why someone would be "hanging around" a house. It seems to be undisputed that TM was on his way home, not scoping out a joint to rob it. For Zimmerman to misinterpret that as what it wasn't required him to at least assume TM didn't belong in the neighborhood. He had to rule out that it might just be a resident of the area on their way somewhere. It can only be action profiling when the act in of of it self is suspicious, and while the act of walking back from the store and talking on the phone might be misinterpreted to be "hanging around" looking in windows, etc, it is not in an of itself suspicious. To see it as suspicious requires placing it in the context of other information like the race of the person or how they are dressed and either of those has a racial component.

    And I agree that Zimmerman is not a stalking killer, but what he might be is a person who when they got hit by this kid got angry and in that anger shot and killed him when he didn't have to. As I have said before there is no conclusive evidence that Martin was straddling or hitting Zimmerman at the time he pulled the trigger. The fact that he had at some point before does not mean he was at the time of the shooting. There was clearly enough time between when witnesses saw Martin on top of Zimmerman and when the shot was fired for things to have changed.


    you really need to stop including disputed (none / 0) (#126)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Jul 20, 2013 at 12:57:51 AM EST
    facts in your post to support your biased view of guilt.   Every comment you make has at least one misstatement that makes me want to delete the whole thing so as not to spread misinformation. Please copy your comments to your own computer if you want your work preserved.

    Readers come here looking for accurate factual information and opinion designated as such. Opinions based on misrepresented and incomplete facts are not acceptable.

    That something wasn't proven to your personal satisfaction doesn't mean there was no evidence of it or no proof. That you can think of another explanation is completely irrelevant.

    The trial is over. The evidence is in. There is evidence to support the jury's finding. The expert witnesses, police witnesses, forensic testing, telephone logs, injury photos all serve as support for Zimmerman's version. The state did not produce sufficient evidence to disprove self-defense.  You can disagree as to the weight you would have given those things, but we are not re-trying the case.

    George Zimmerman was acquitted after a trial before a judge who until the last two days almost always ruled for the prosecution and ignored the state's gamesmanship over discovery. She forced the case to trial before the defense was ready. The defense had the double burden of trying the case while discovery and depositions were still outstanding. Had there been a level playing field and adequate time to prepare the case, and the defense given access to the material the state obtained from Martin's phone before the eve of the trial, it's case would only have been stronger.

    You are certainly entitled to express your opinion but you may not do so by making up holes in the evidence that aren't there.


    I forgot to include the (none / 0) (#127)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Jul 20, 2013 at 12:59:12 AM EST
    eyewitnesses at the scene.

    Rjpjrca, your (preconceived) notions of GZ (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by melamineinNY on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 09:54:32 AM EST
    caused you to reduce his reason for profiling TM to nothing more than "walking slowly through a neighborhood" If you were to add hoodie or black or any other physical attribute, it would still be selective. You do what you accuse George of doing.

    ...project on to the situation his own preconceived notions about the person in question. And the fact is his interpretation of what he saw was completely wrong.

    What you believe about GZ's interpretation of what he saw is not a "fact", it's your projection of your own preconceived notions again.

    factual mistakes (5.00 / 0) (#24)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 10:04:33 AM EST
    well, if you actually read the article we find some obvious and good truth and some obvious factual mistakes.  For example, the author states:

    6. She used forensic evidence to infer what happened in the fight. . .

    My, oh my, oh my!  Using the "forensic evidence" would be distinguished, I suppose, from "going by the prosecution's opening argument" or, by "believing everything said by Rachel Jeantel or by everything said by Syrdyka who heard 3 shots"?

    Here is another misleading, distorted fact implication:

    Her certainty that the person calling for help was Zimmerman, despite an FBI voice expert's inability to resolve that question, is somewhat jarring.

    However, her certainty comes not from a scientific voice analysis, but from John Good's testimony and the fact that Zimmerman was being injured and beaten and Martin was not . . .

    Here is a whopper:
    But the "Stand Your Ground" doctrine, as cited by this juror, plainly influenced the verdict.

    However, even without SYG, Z had a valid self-defense claim, cause he was not in a position to retreat . . . unless you suppose he was on top . . . or unless you suppose he had his gun out from the start and was never pinned to ground!

    Here is what is proper:
    In the end, "I had no doubt George feared for his life in the situation he was in at the time." He "had a right to protect himself at that point."

    and, this is normal self-defense, applicable in every state.

    Also . . . (none / 0) (#26)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 10:09:15 AM EST
    having no doubt that GZ feared for his life makes this verdict, or the juror's interpreation of the facts, not just "not proven to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt," but "factually innocent beyond her doubts."

    The DR. was going to testify that (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by leftwig on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 10:17:21 AM EST
    the level of THC and THC metabolites in his system meant he had smoked within the last 2-4 hours or he was a chronic/daily user who may not have smoked for a few days.  Either scenario could have had various side affects on decision making and actions that evening.

    I don't think the THC had much to do with what occurred that evening, but I think it should have been introduced to corroborate GZ's observations.  Didn't matter in the end because the jury believed that the NEN call was made due to observed activity and not predetermined based on race.

    Rjpjrca, your assertion about (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by melamineinNY on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 10:28:21 AM EST
    "an unarmed child gunned down" distorts the facts and perceptions. And it's not about GZ being 100% justified in his perceptions or even sensible in his actions that night, but why don't you question TM's actions as vigorously as you do GZ's? I accept that Trayvon was probably not acting suspiciously, knowing what we do in hindsight about him being on the phone, but armchair flame-throwing after the fact is not advancing any discussion of facts or reasonable suppositions. I would even grant the failure of George to identify himself as neighborhood watch as a problem, but not a provacation under the circumstances of Trayvon approaching him. If Trayvon did not go straight home, but circled round and approached George and threw the first punch, in what way do you think it was self-defense of a sort not recognized by law? The right to a fair trial and not guilty verdict based on the law is not dependent on or reflective of George's level of common sense or self-knowledge. But why are you unwilling to question the victim's as well?

    in her tv interview (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 03:51:50 AM EST
    Rachel said that what tm meant by creepy *ss cracker was a security guard of some type . . . TM was not ignorant, it seems, as to Z's position and intent, which was not to do harm to him, but to observe him for possible crime.

    Because then the police dispatch (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Harold on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 12:34:22 PM EST
    would be upgraded to emergency level.  Although Martin did ignore John Good's warning, "I said cut it out. I'm calling 911 because it was getting serious."  On the third hand, everything I've been told about this sort of combat says you tend to get a sort of tunnel vision, often to the exclusion of other threats.

    SMH (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by txantimedia on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 12:36:06 PM EST
    I am not questioning TM's actions as vigorously because no one is dead because of his actions, and while injuries like Zimmerman suffered are unfortunate they do not rise the level of harm brought about from the taking of a human life.

    You are charmingly naive.  Google "one punch kill".

    Here's a few:

    Man kills with one punch in Vegas casino

    Teenager kills cancer surgeon with one punch

    22 year old woman kills rapper with one punch

    GZ is private citizen (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Kplaids on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 12:36:37 PM EST
    So not illegal for him to "racial" profile.  From listening to Rachel Jeantel as well as 90% of the black legal commentators, it is quite clear that many or even most black people have a predetermined opinion on white people.  Sunny HOstin even thinks that its white racism to feel Rachel JEantel not being able to read cursive is indicative of low intelligence.  I don't have an opinion one way or the other on reading cursive but I don't think its only black people who can't read it.  

    But I am glad there was no evidence of any "racial" profiling in the case nor in any interactions GZ had prior to the incident as it would be used as evidence against him by Holder and Obama and they would have already indicted him.  This is not America.  I know people who pretty much teach their kids to hate Republicans and its not nice but I have to allow them their freedom of speech and belief.  

    Give it up (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by txantimedia on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 12:37:42 PM EST
    Rachel said he smoked "about twice a week" in a recent interview.

    I think you will find more (5.00 / 0) (#68)
    by melamineinNY on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 02:20:41 PM EST
    on this blog who agree with what you're saying than don't. Much sympathy for GZ was generated by reaction to the Martin lawyers, media and such than would otherwise have been the case, because of their campaign to deny Zimmerman a fair trial through racial innuendo, disinformation and suppression of evidence, and reinvention of what remained. Many who know FL law say that Zimmerman should not even have been charged. If not for the injection of politics and media distortions, I believe judgments of Zimmerman's choices that night and perhaps character would be more apparently in agreement.  

    Yes, Martin benefited (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by HereIBlog on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 02:28:22 PM EST
    Please, look up the internal investigation files and the demoting of Chief Charles Hurley. Martin benefited by not being arrested. It is possible that his legal troubles may have helped him get help long before his third suspension.

    Anyway, I don't want to violate commenting rules by addressing your questions that are easily answered by the available investigation files.

    That's not true at all. (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by vicndabx on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 03:59:50 PM EST
    Stop repeating biased accounts from conservative websites.  Perspective:

    In a sworn affidavit, now-reassigned MDSPD Chief Charles Hurley spoke about programs his agency utilized to refrain from ushering black male youth into the criminal justice system.

    Nothing illegal about that.  The discovery issues are another matter which I won't delve into out of respect for the host.

    I disagree with this (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by ding7777 on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 04:24:46 PM EST
    He then decided not to go in the house and expose Chad to potential danger but wasn't sure what to do next.

    I don't think he gave Chad a thought. If TM really felt there was danger, he would have called Chad and told him to lock doors/windows and call 911 immediately to report a prowler.

    Rewarding antisocial behavior (5.00 / 0) (#83)
    by melamineinNY on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 04:43:02 PM EST
    Obviously, the obstacle to any positive results is the way our elites want to keep viewing people as victims of something or someone.

    Or heros to be rewarded for being "authentic."

    BS (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 07:39:02 PM EST
    TM is dead because Zimmerman shot him. There were other possible outcomes. Please, it is wrong to suggest that Martin got what he deserved, really wrong, imo.

    If the "but for" test is correct (5.00 / 3) (#94)
    by cboldt on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 07:55:10 PM EST
    If only Zimmerman had stayed in his car.  How many times do we get to hear that?  Zimmerman's fault because he should have stayed in his car.

    Is that the test?  Is that how we are going to assign culpability?  Legal or moral, I don't care take your pick.

    Because if that is the test, two can play the game.  If only Martin had not sat on Zimmerman for 40 seconds.  If only Martin had not punched Zimmerman in the nose.  If only Martin had stayed out of Zimmerman's sight.  If only Martin hadn't asked Zimmerman whatever it was that caused Zimmerman to reach in his pocket.

    If it's okay to assign fault to Zimmerman for getting out of his car, then it's okay to assign fault to Martin.  Martin could have avoided this outcome too.

    In the alternative, using the "Martin has no fault" game, every killing in the world should result in the killer going to jail.  I don't care if you are killing to fend off a rapist, a robbery, or a murder attempt, if you win the fight, you could have avoided the outcome.


    BS (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 08:04:21 PM EST
    It is OK to believe that the State had no case, and was foolish to press charges with what they had, and it is my belief that Zimmerman's verdict of not-guilty on all counts is 100% correct, but it is not ok to say that Martin got shot because he deserved it.

    Sorry that does not wash, ever. A kid got killed, that is tragic. He was killed because Zimmerman shot him. Blaming Martin is immoral, imo. This was a tragedy.


    Who said "deserved"? (5.00 / 3) (#96)
    by cboldt on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 08:21:25 PM EST
    Sometimes the dead person is innocent, sometimes not.  I was pointing out the ramifications of adopting the "could have avoided it" test.

    Blaming Zimmerman is as much immoral as blaming Martin.  You are just shifting your decision based on which happened to win the fight.

    You see no tragedy in a decision to punch Zimmerman in the face?  To sit on him and hold him screaming for help?  I avoid you Martin folks because as far as I can tell, you endorse violence, and are dangerous people.  I might be wrong, but I'd rather shun you and be safe, than trust you and get my ass whooped.


    may we propose (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 03:57:19 AM EST
    that someone comes to you and bangs your head into the sidewalk a dozen times while you are screaming for help . . . and then you say, tis nothing?

    what is fair? (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 03:58:47 AM EST
    according to you, what is a fair result to a person who is beating another and pounding their head into the sidewalk, while he is screaming for help?

    Everytime I think about this case my mind flashes (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 11:30:19 PM EST
    Bback to remembering a teenage African American boy, maybe 15 yrs. old, who, dressed like other boys his age for school, I would see walking in my neighborhood in a direction and at a time consistent with him being a kid walking home from the middle school in our community.  But he always looked down when he walked. Asian-Americans or immigrants from Asia were moving into the community but I think his was one of the first African-American families to move into the community. This was  many years ago.

    Rjpjrca (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by ding7777 on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 07:27:48 AM EST
    I have zero respect for people who are upset that there was a trial to begin with, and who believe that the police should have been allowed to be the judge and jury of Zimmerman's credibility.

    It was Corey who acted like judge and jury when she bypassed the grand jury to issued a murder charge (not the SPD who kicked the case over to Seminole County State Attorney Office where a sitting grand jury could have made the determination).

    The absence of Zimmerman's blood on Martin's hand was proof of one of two things- either Zimmerman's story was not credible, or the police did not conduct the investigation properly.

    Or that the County Medical Examiner's Office was
    tardy in arriving at the scene and negligent in preserving and collecting evidence.

    In either case that is proof to me that a trial was needed because it shows the either the police were not capable of conducting a fair and competent investigation and therefore should not be trusted to decide the issue;

    All the evidence that Corey used at trial came from the SPD. Not once did Corey try to show the SPD's investigation was incompetent.

    Or perhaps the local authorities (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by Harold on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 11:10:13 AM EST
    Never really doubted the end of the incident, i.e. Martin on top beating Zimmerman; that Zimmerman shot Martin was never denied.  Were any of them asked if they saw blood on Martin's hands?  Of course the rain or wet grass (when the police arrived Martin was face down on the ground) could have washed that away so only a lab test would work; we do know whomever failed to bag his hands.

    I know John Good, the only eye witness, talked to the authorities after his 911 call, which was done inside his residence and started right after the shot; if he talked to them at the scene they would legitimately have little doubt of the end.


    Rjpjrca (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by ding7777 on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 01:13:49 PM EST
    re grand jury: if the SPD kicked the case over to the Seminole County SAO, then, the SPD was not/could not be acting as judge as jury.

    What additional evidence did Corey's office unearth that the SPD did not already have?

    What were the huge problem(s) with the mishandling of the case by the SPD?  I agree the Medical Examiner office screwed up but that is hardly the fault of the SPD.

    there wasn't any (none / 0) (#136)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Jul 20, 2013 at 12:42:34 PM EST
    As I keep saying that commenter continuously presents a false narrative as fact. I'm done reading him/her and he/she is done commenting here. After several warnings and deletions, the commenter continues to sound like a broken record replaying his/her version of  what he/she took from the evidence. Particularly since his/her comments are so long, it just takes too much time to weed through them. When I find one false statement expressed as a fact, it's enough for the comment to go. I have repeatedly told the commenter to save his/her postings on his/her own computer because they are likely to be deleted.

    It is that commenter's personal view the Sanford police investigation was shoddy. He states it as fact, which it is not. I simply cannot spend any more time reading his/her single spaced novels about the evidence.


    I am here to tell you that... (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by bmaz on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 07:47:47 PM EST
    ... in self defense shootings of this general type, it is very normal that there is no charging done for 2-4 weeks while all the evidence is gathered and ME results are in and then it is taken to a GJ. There was nothing whatsoever out of line in this regard with the conduct of SPD, and people that squawk that there is don't know what they are talking about.

    the discussion here is not about (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Jul 20, 2013 at 01:13:47 PM EST
    the morality of the case but the legal aspects. I also discuss the undeniable false media portrayals and my opinion that the case was catapulted to national prominence by private parties who co-opted the media and brought inappropriate pressure to bear on the state's ongoing investigation to force it to file charges, while continuously publicly branding the defendant as a cold-blooded murderer and claiming they had a witness who would blow Zimmerman's self-defense claim "out of the water."

    The morality of the actions of George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin has never been a topic here. They are irrelevant to the legal proceedings.

    Your not very well disguised  attempts to recast the facts of the case have a consistent pattern: You start out with the verdict "could be" justified by the evidence but is not definitive, which you follow with your  interpretation of cherry-picked pieces of evidence which you use to claim there are  doubts as to whether Zimmerman's version is correct, and then you  elevate your assumptions and interpretations into factual proof that legitimizes your moral judgment against the defendant. That kind of twisted and deceptive logic has no place here.

    The haters of GZ are dissapointed and it shows (4.75 / 4) (#78)
    by Slado on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 03:32:11 PM EST
    I can only assume they hoped a guilty verdict would shine a light on racism.

    TL has opened my eyes to the problem with our drug laws and the way we arrest and put young men in jail (especially the poor and minorities) at an alarming rate.

    However, as Jearalyn has pointed out many, many times that is not a good reason to put GZ in jail.

    TM probably attacked GZ.  Was he scared?  Did he feel threatened?  I think so.   IMHO he saw this creepy guy following him, confronted him, a fight ensued and ended with deadly results.  We'll never know.  

    However nothing, except wild speculation showed anything close to enough evidence to send GZ to jail.

    The actions of the media and all the hoopla before the trial was a media circus that ruined the lives of some public officials and led to the prosecution bringing a case it couldn't win.

    That is now obvious and those personally invested in a GZ guilty verdict are not happy about it.

    Too many on the right are celebrating IMHO but such is the case when one side of the partisan aisle goes so over the top and eventually loses.  Everyone digs in on their particular side and real lessons get lost in the shuffle.

    This is wrong... (3.50 / 2) (#86)
    by DebFrmHell on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 05:27:02 PM EST
    I am not questioning TM's actions as vigorously because no one is dead because of his actions

    If Self-Defense was accepted by the jury and you said you agree with the verdict, then IMO ONLY, it would appear that young Martin was at least  responsible for his fate.  Perhaps you should start questioning the actions of TM at the same time as questioning GZ's to see if you can find balance.

    rcade - An unreported crime is still a crime. (2.33 / 3) (#82)
    by melamineinNY on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 04:33:35 PM EST
    Too bad Trayvon wasn't held accountable in some manner or form for the theft, because he might be alive today if the adults in his life who were aware of that had taken responsibility for guiding his moral education.

    Unrecorded, not unreported? (n/t) (none / 0) (#85)
    by Towanda on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 05:04:27 PM EST
    My mistake, you are right : l (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by melamineinNY on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 05:32:30 PM EST
    or something like that. In any event, he was not charged with anything legally or diverted to any program in lieu of charges that I can see.

    Konteyner (1.00 / 1) (#138)
    by konteyner on Tue Jul 23, 2013 at 09:30:49 AM EST
    Container size than the standard sizes that the measures can be considered as a special project, if deemed necessary, the system can recommend combination with mono-block system. Container House Prices kontener reaching the authorities to get information about the prices. To contact us, please contact 444 1777 with sales representatives, our phone number. Or / Or here, with the help of forms of communication available to us. Konteyner

    Has it? (none / 0) (#6)
    by Jbsnyder on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 08:12:20 AM EST
    It's not surprising, but it also is.  I am somewhat conflicted on guns but tend to lean towards gun rights overall, and I thought this case was a brutal one for gun rights advocates.  It's basically the nightmare scenario that people opposed to CCW bring up.  In fact, I was pretty surprised at how much the racial justice angle overshadowed the gun control argument.

    that comment was deleted (none / 0) (#134)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Jul 20, 2013 at 12:30:08 PM EST
    gun rights group stayed silent after the shooting and did not use it to support their views. They consistently said they don't know the facts. Liberals jumped on them questioning why they weren't using the case to foster their views. When they responded, it was to blast the media (like NBC) for their inaccurate coverage of the case.

    Since the title of the article is (none / 0) (#10)
    by txantimedia on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 09:07:15 AM EST
    Jury Rigged, it's pretty easy to realize what the conclusion will be.  Most people here prefer evidence to conjecture.

    I've been a member of the RKBA community (none / 0) (#13)
    by Harold on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 09:18:33 AM EST
    Since the early '70s (sic), and it has escaped my notice that "that this case was also used by gun-rights advocates as an example of why fewer restrictions on gun ownership and expanded definitions of self-defense should be encouraged."

    Quite to the country; here a short list:

    The Stand Your Ground (SYG) principle was not in the least implicated in the case, and you all know how that's played out in the media.  It's playing out poorly in politics; while there are 33 states that have it now (California even allows pursuing your attacker if needed (!!!)), it's very unlikely any more will adopt it for quite some time.

    We're all taught that shooting the unarmed is the absolute worst case when there are no other confounding factors.  My Virginia concealed carry instructor essentially said that my face would have to look like Zimmerman's if I wanted to avoid a conviction in the courts.  It's also a stark object lesson in how a serious criminal defense will cost middle-low six figures.

    Obviously the narrative of a "creepy a** cracker" "white Hispanic" man gunning down an angelic black child in that red Hollister shirt, who was armed only with Skittles and a soft drink he was getting for his brother, has done incalculable damage to the cause.

    Since the case boiled down to the principle of simple self-defense if the facts were sufficiently established, a conviction would have created an intolerable precedent with many ugly consequences.  We still may see a conviction in the Federal courts, civil or criminal, and in the State civil courts under a sufficiently biased judge (can an adverse ruling of an immunity determination be appealed?).

    So I'd like to ask for some citations of RKBA types of any stature using this to promote the cause.

    What is RKBA? (none / 0) (#23)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 09:54:56 AM EST
    The Right (none / 0) (#46)
    by txantimedia on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 12:14:22 PM EST
    To Keep and Bear Arms - RKBA - it's a common acronym among concealed carriers and 2nd Amendment activists.

    What you are implying... (none / 0) (#34)
    by Laura G on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 10:40:12 AM EST
    What you are implying is racial profiling.  There is a difference between racial profiling and profiling.  Racial profiling is based on race, which is what your are implying.  Profiling can be based on several different factors, one being behavior.  Zimmerman profiled based on behavior not race.

    I Agree With Most of What You Say (none / 0) (#38)
    by RickyJim on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 11:07:29 AM EST
    But not this part
    and it becomes equally plausible and IMO extremely likely that Trayvon waited for George to end the call with dispatch, the phone timeline proves this, and then administer a beatdown for snitching.

    The part I put in bold goes too far.  Yours is not the only explanation.  Trayvon may have been walking up and down the dog path because phone reception in the house was even worse than outside.  He might never have known that Zimmerman was out of the car until he sees him walking by, heading west across the top of the T.  I doubt the snitching business also.  I think there is good reason to believe that Z and M had been playing a challenge game by taking turns following and approaching other ever since TM entered the complex.  I have discussed this in the Trial Expectations/Your Theories thread on the TLForums.

    I stated it as my opinion (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by lily on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 01:01:37 PM EST
    your arguments did not persuade me differently.

    From the initial report (none / 0) (#51)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 12:35:24 PM EST

    From the time of initial report of suspicious behavior to the time of answering the dispatcher's question about race, Zimmerman had more time to observe and make an estimation of Martin's race.  

    At first glance you may see some playing cards on the floor, with time and focus you may see that one is the four of diamonds.  


    better copy and save (none / 0) (#65)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 01:54:43 PM EST
    your comment because the link is screwing up the page.  Put it up again and learn how to use the link feature available to you under the comment box or use tiny URL.

    to use the link tool, highlite whatever phrase you want to be your link to the page you want people to go to.  Then click on the little graphic that looks like a chain link in a fence.  Put your cursor in the box that pops up, hit control V, voila` you're done.  Hit preview to make sure it came out right. The phrase you chose should be a lovely linky blue and your comment ready to post.

    I think he also (none / 0) (#69)
    by Darby on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 02:22:07 PM EST
    Had burglar tools in his backpack

    so, this is political for you (none / 0) (#90)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 06:54:16 PM EST
    the politics of race and it is all about left and right.  You've come here to announce that anyone who doesn't see it your way is a racist and better examine their own thinking.  

    Blah blah blah....guilt guilt guilt.  Next time Skippy, try evidence and testimony and cut the race baiting and emotional manipulation.

    "the rest of us"? (none / 0) (#91)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 07:00:13 PM EST
    do you have a family of mice in your pocket?

    You do not have to see someone's face to see that they are looking in to people's windows.  You may find it hard to tell someone's skin color in the dark when they are wearing a hoodie.

    that comment was deleted (none / 0) (#111)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 05:00:56 AM EST
    for falsely representing GZ's prior calls to non-emergency.

    The rapist suggestion is ludicrous (none / 0) (#97)
    by lousy1 on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 08:31:39 PM EST
    Can anyone cite a case of a solitary 17 year old boy walking in an densely populated public place that was raped by a single stranger?

    Doesn't happen. The thought would not even cross a man's mind.  There are alternative, plausible threat assessments.

    None of these fears lend themselves to qualify TMs failure to continue on to his house once he had lost GZ in the gloom.

    Never bought the molester angle (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by ExcitableBoy on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 05:37:06 PM EST
    it's pretty silly concerning a 5'11", 158 lb kid. Sure, there are the occasional John Wayne Gacy's, but they're very rare. More importantly, I don't see Rachel's testimony as pointing to anything other than annoyance in Trayvon, not fear.

    As for not wanting to lead him back to the house, you can see it's pitch black from the pictures. Once Trayvon is about 10-15 feet down the path, he's gone. He tells her he's lost him. And if he was truly concerned, I don't see him making noise by continuing to walk around talking on the phone, and he didn't indicate any great fear.

    I have another theory regarding Rachel, but there's no evidence for it, so I'll keep it to myself.


    Before Rachel made the comment (none / 0) (#129)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Jul 20, 2013 at 01:45:25 AM EST
    about her thinking it might be a rapist, there was this exchange:

    BDLR: Make sure we got that creepy ass cracker. Is that what you recall him saying?
    JEANTEL: Yes.
    BDLR: Does that to you mean like a white individual?
    JEANTEL: Yes, Caucasian.

    Also, after telling BDLR twice she was thinking to herself it might be a rapist, there was an pause because no one could hear her, and when BDLR resumed his questioning, he changed it to her telling Travon the guy might be a rapist (rather than her thinking it.)

    BDLR: What did you say to him or what did he say to you after that?
    JEANTEL: He kept telling me the man was looking at him. So I had to think it might have been a rapist.
    West: I'm sorry. I didn't hear the answer.
    Unidentified: OK. She's going to repeat it. Can you please repeat your answer?
    BDLR: Go ahead.
    JEANTEL: So he told me the man was looking at him. So I had to think it might be a rapist.
    Court Reporter:  She said something after that, but I didn't hear what she said.
    BDLR:  Can you repeat -- I'm sorry, madam court reporter. Tell me when you're ready.
    Court Reporter: I'm ready.
    BDLR: Can you repeat your answer. You told him the man might be a rapist?
    JEANTEL: Yes.

    BDLR does that with a lot of witnesses -- too often for me to think it's unintentional.


    I suspect if he saw a clean cut (none / 0) (#98)
    by lousy1 on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 08:42:32 PM EST
    suited white teenager holding what appeared to be religious flyers his initial reaction might have been more measured - unless there was a previous sustained onslaught of missionary crime in the neighborhood.

    Go back in this forum a bit and research goons and also peruse the FBI reports concerning the trespasser problems afflicting the community

    In my state, juvenile records are sealed unless (none / 0) (#107)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 11:35:25 PM EST
    a juvenile court judge reviews and grants a  petition to unseal.the record.  

    the judge ordered all school records to be turned (none / 0) (#128)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Jul 20, 2013 at 01:05:38 AM EST
    over to the defense. They were not made public and did not come into evidence at trial.

    wannable cop angle (none / 0) (#122)
    by ExcitableBoy on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 05:53:55 PM EST
    was completely overblown. If he was really a wannabe cop, he would've jumped at the chance when the neighborhood watch trainer wanted him to join the Citizens On Patrol (COP) program with the uniforms, car with the flashy lights, etc.

    I wish he didn't have the gun. I'm not a gun guy but support the right of others to carry them. If he was unarmed, my gut feeling is that he would've gotten his butt whupped, the cops would have been there a minute later, and Trayvon probably would've been charged with assault, or they both would have been arrested. I understand any blow can be fatal, and understand his fear, but I don't think Trayvon was going to kill him, especially with the police about to arrive.

    Do we know for a fact (none / 0) (#123)
    by ExcitableBoy on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 06:02:25 PM EST
    that the SPD was not going to charge him, or was the case just taken away for not moving fast enough to placate the masses? It can take months to a year or more to build a case for arrest. The case was taken away, a special prosecutor brought in, and charges files with 46 days of the killing.

    Rjpjrca, once and for all, please state (none / 0) (#131)
    by melamineinNY on Sat Jul 20, 2013 at 08:04:22 AM EST
    the specific facts in evidence - not interpretations of what ifs - that you dispute, and why, instead of making general accusations about Jeralyn's opinions and asking her to engage in a game of speculative hypotheticals defending Trayvon. Her opinions here have been based as much as possible on facts in evidence and the law, for the purpose of ensuring a fair trial, not equating automatically to a morally satisfying conclusion, which requires interpretations of evidence based on speculation and bias. Here's an idea: if you have time, why don't you show us how you would theoretically defend George Zimmerman.

    the commenter can't do that without (none / 0) (#133)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Jul 20, 2013 at 12:13:28 PM EST
    misrepresenting what I have written. My words speak for themselves. I have never viewed the case through a moral lens only a legal one. I present the facts and state my opinion of what they mean legally.

    I don't make moral judgments, I draw legal ones. I have said since the beginning the coverage of this case is designed only to analyze the legal proceedings and reduce the prejudice to the defendant caused by the false media statements and in my view inappropriate political pressure brought to bear by private lawyers who used a public relations team to engage national civil rights leaders and rally America behind their false narrative, all of which threaten the rights of an accused to a fair trial.