Skip to comments.Harvard Prof. Alan Dershowitz: Zimmerman Arrest Affidavit ‘Irresponsible And Unethical’
Posted on 04/12/2012 3:51:09 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Harvard University law professor Alan Dershowitz appeared on MSNBCs Hardball where fill-in host Michel Smerconish asked him his opinions of the arrest warrant issued and carried out for alleged Trayvon Martin murderer, George Zimmerman. Dershowitz called the affidavit justifying Zimmermans arrest not only thin, its irresponsible. He went on to criticize the decision to charge Zimmerman for second degree murder by special prosecutor Angela Cory as being politically motivated.
Youve seen the affidavit of probable cause. What do you make of it, Smerconish asked. It wont suffice, Dershowitz replied without hesitation.
Most affidavits of probable cause are very thin. This is so thin that it wont make it past a judge on a second degree murder charge, Dershowitz said. Theres simply nothing in there that would justify second degree murder.
Dershowitz said that the elements that would constitute that crime are non-existent in the affidavit. Its not only thin, its irresponsible, said Dershowitz.
Dershowitz went on to strongly criticize Corys decision to move forward with the case against Zimmerman. I think what you have here is an elected public official who made a campaign speech last night for reelection when she gave her presentation and overcharged. This case will not if the evidence is no stronger than what appears in the probable cause affidavit this case will result in an acquittal.
Smerconish identified the total lack of any mention of the supposed fight that occurred between Martin and Zimmerman prior to Martin being shot. He said he was disappointed that he did not see any mention of that conflict that led to Martins murder.
But its worse than that, said Dershowitz. Its irresponsible and unethical in not including material that favors the defendant.
This affidavit does not even make it to probable cause, Dershowitz concluded. everything in the affidavit is completely consistent with a defense of self-defense. Everything.
Watch the segment below via MSNBC:
(VIDEO AT LINK)
“It depends on the make up of the jury.”
Don’t remind me, my one and only experience with jury duty left me trembling in fear at the thought that I might be judged by such a group. There were three of us out of the twelve who had an understanding of what was going on, the rest may as well have been four years old. This was a civil suit, I shudder to think of such a group deciding a criminal case.
Being a private citizen is no barrier at all. Here’s a link from the first page of the google search for “civil rights violation” + “double jeopardy”:
A guy is acquitted of murder, the Feds step right in with Violation of Civil Rights, he’s convicted, it’s not double jeopardy because you see it’s the Feds not a state, next case please.
A more fruitful google is for “Lemrick Nelson”, and in fact the Feds got TWO trials to put him away. Does this sound familiar — or predictive?:
“In 1997, following nonstop pressure on the Clinton administration, Nelson was charged in federal court with violating Rosenbaums civil rights, under a statute used during the civil rights era to sidestep the racism of Southern white juries.”
“Irresponsible and Unethical”. Aren’t all Show Trials?
And martial law may well be precisely the intent!
The start of a rift between Democrats? My FRiend, the whole thing is between Democrats. Zimmerman is a registered rat. What the heck, load him up and send that man back out.
Two words: Mike Nifong.
In a big event, which could last days, weeks, months or years, your paper license in your pocket is absolutely meaningless.
During that press conference she was like a little teenaged girl just happy to be the center of attention. She was perky and just loving the cameras. Her immaturity came across loud and clear and is driving her decision making. She should be easy to defeat.
“Got news for ya, in a major event, CCW permit means nothing, zip.”
Sure it does. It means not being prosecuted for a concealed weapon which can be many years in prison.
I define a major event as lasting weeks, months or even years, a collapsed world economy, civil war, events where hundreds of thousands or even millions are dead, possible wide spread fighting, grid/water supplies down, roads/highways compromise, government infrastructure gone, etc.
Ya ever see what the cops did in Louisiana, when they couldn't even handle a hurricane? They all ran off. Some of them started looting.
If ya think during a major event you'll be jailed due to lack of piece of paper in your wallet...Well what can I say.
I would guess during this kind of major event scenario, that would be the very last thing on anyone's mind.
I believe the SYG Law in Florida provides the means for Z to do just that.
Gotcha. Yep. No CCW will mean a damned thing then. Not having a weapon will though!
“Ya ever see what the cops did in Louisiana, when they couldn’t even handle a hurricane? They all ran off. Some of them started looting.”
I remember the local NBC reporter, asking the fat female cop why she was pushing a cart in K Mart, bursting with expensive merchandise.
NBC: “ What are you doing, pushing that cart”?
Cop: “I’m checking inventory”
NBC: “ No you aren’t!”
Cop: “ Mind yo own bidness!!”
It seemed to me that O.J.s defense team recognized that time was not on their side. The sooner they went to trial, the less prepared the prosecution would be.
The Zimmerman prosecution has a ludicrously weak case and will look even worse if they are forced to present it before having plenty of time to tighten things up. Sixty days is not a lot of time when one needs to coordinate the testimony of many experts and witnesses.
The prosecution will have to deal with the fact that very few of the professionals who were involved in the early investigation thought that Zimmerman had committed a crime.
Even if such a professional testifies that he now believes that Zimmerman is guilty, he will have to explain his earlier stance.
Is it just me or does Zimmerman now look a little less “white” than in earlier pictures?
You have the judge for company, see #51 here: