Alan Dershowitz's Perspective:
The time has come for the cheerleading on both sides to stop in the killing of Trayvon Martin and for everybody to unite around the need for the truth — or as much of it as we can recapture — to emerge as to precisely what happened on that dark, rainy night.
Once the facts have been established, by scientific, forensic and other evidence, then we can begin to analyze whether these facts constitute a defense under Florida’s stand your ground statute, which, for better or worse, strongly favors the defendant.
|Zimmerman attorneys Craig Sonner (L) and Hal Uhrig (R) speak with the media about having lost contact with their client.
At the moment, the facts in the case — at least those known to the public — are ever shifting.
One journalist aptly characterized the case as, “a narrative Rorschach that each side will interpret as it wishes.” Now it has been announced that the special prosecutor may soon release new information that may change both the public perception of the case and its legal strengths and weaknesses.
Several points can be made even now with a high degree of certainty.
First, the decision by George Zimmerman's lawyers to stop representing him portends a disastrous reversal of fortune for Zimmerman as he faces the prospect of being charged with manslaughter for the killing of Trayvon Martin — a charge that Zimmerman might well have been able to beat if he had hired competent lawyers and followed their advice.
Instead, he had an unprofessional relationship with media-driven lawyers — he called them “legal advisors” — and refused to follow their advice, talking to the media, to the public via a website and to the prosecutor.
Wildcat clients who operate outside of the lawyer/client framework are the bane of criminal defense lawyers. I know, because I've had several such clients.
Zimmerman’s “lawyers” were right to end their legal relationship with their client, but they went about it in the wrong way. They simply should have notified the prosecution and the public in a one sentence statement that they no longer represented Zimmerman (if they ever really did!).
They should not have explained the reason why they quit, because that inevitably revealed lawyer client privileged information such as the fact that Zimmerman was not following their advice, that he may be suffering from post traumatic stress disorder and that they can’t reach him.
They also had no right to discuss possible defenses, especially a claim of insanity, since that might undercut Zimmerman’s absolute defense of justification.
The special prosecutor may have been pressured by the lawyers’ statements to arrest Zimmerman even more quickly than she had originally intended, because the lawyers acknowledged that they didn’t know where he was.
Even Zimmerman’s mysterious location was subject to differing interpretations. The Martin family saw it as flight suggestive of a guilty conscience and the need for a quick arrest, while Zimmerman’s supporters viewed it as a rational response to the bounty put on his head by the Black Panthers.
Second, on the basis of the evidence currently in the public record, one likely outcome of the case against George Zimmerman is a mixed one: There may be sufficient evidence for a reasonable prosecutor to indict him for manslaughter, but there may also be doubt sufficient for a reasonable jury to acquit him.
Any such predictions should be accepted with an abundance of caution, however, because the evidence known to the special prosecutor, but not to the public, may paint a different picture. It may be stronger or weaker.
Media reports suggest that police found Zimmerman with grass stains on the back of his shirt, bloody bruises on the back of his head and other indicia that may support his contention that Trayvon Martin was banging his head against the ground when Zimmerman shot him.
We don't know what Martin's body or clothing show, other than the fatal bullet wound. If there are no comparable bruises or grass stains and if the bullet wound and powder residue establish that the gun was fired at very close range, this too might support a claim of self-defense.
Then there is a recorded cry for help, which, if it turns out to be the voice of Martin, would undercut the defense — if the voice analysis passes scientific muster and is deemed admissible into evidence.
There may be additional forensic evidence — or witnesses — of which we are now unaware, though it is unlikely there is a "smoking gun."
Finally, there is the overarching and historically painful reality that an unarmed black teenager lies dead at the hand of an armed Hispanic man who ignored a dispatcher's advice not to follow and engage the "suspect," and who may have — and this too is forensically unclear — uttered a racial epithet while chasing him.
These "facts" give rise to several possible scenarios of what may actually have occurred on that dark rainy night. Under the Florida self-defense statute, it matters greatly what happened, most especially who "initially provoke[d] the use of force," and who started the physical encounter.
If Zimmerman initially provoked the deadly encounter, then he cannot invoke any "stand your ground" defense. He would then be under a legal obligation to "exhaust . . . every reasonable means to escape."
Though this statute is anything but a model of clarity, it does suggest that whoever "provokes" a deadly encounter has a heavy burden of justification in claiming self-defense. But the statute doesn't define "provokes," and that ambiguous word may hold the key to the outcome of this tragic case.
If provocation is limited to a physical assault, and if Zimmerman's account that Martin blindsided him with a punch is believed, then Zimmerman did not provoke the encounter. But if provocation includes following the victim and harassing him, then Zimmerman may well qualify as a provocateur. Moreover, a jury may believe that Zimmerman started the physical confrontation by grabbing Martin.
This would almost certainly constitute provocation.
But to complicate matters further, even a provocateur has the legal right to defend himself under Florida law if he can't escape and if he is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm, as Zimmerman claims he was.
All this goes to show how factually driven this case is under Florida law. And we don't yet know all the facts. The special prosecutor has an obligation to consider all the evidence and to apply the law to the facts.
All she needs in order to indict is probable cause that a crime has been committed. A jury that ultimately decides whether the defendant is guilty needs much more: proof beyond a reasonable doubt. But what if a prosecutor concludes that there is both probable cause and a reasonable doubt?
That is the nightmare scenario that this prosecutor may well face. In ordinary circumstances, most prosecutors would not bring such a case, because it would be a waste of resources to indict someone who will probably be acquitted. But this is anything but a run-of-the-mill case.
Moreover, the Florida statute provides an additional layer of protection to a defendant claiming self-defense: A judge must decide whether the defendant is "immune from prosecution," that is, if the judge believes his actions fall under the law of self-defense.
So the following mixed outcome is certainly possible: The judge does or doesn't grant immunity; if he doesn't, the jury acquits.
Many people would be unhappy with such a mixed outcome, but it is not the job of the law to make people happy.
Alan M. Dershowitz is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at Harvard Law School. He is a graduate of Brooklyn College and Yale Law School. Read more reports from Alan M. Dershowitz — Click Here Now.
© 2013 Newsmax. All rights reserved.