Alan Dershowitz, renown left-wing lawyer, has reviewed the affidavit in support probable cause for the charge of murder in the 2nd for George Zimmerman. He states unequivocally that there is no evidence presented for the charge and that the prosecutor is deliberately over-charging in an effort to obtain a plea deal.
MSNBC via Mediaite April 12, 2012
Harvard University law professor Alan Dershowitz appeared on MSNBC’s 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 Zimmerman’s arrest “not only thin, it’s irresponsible.” He went on to criticize the decision to charge Zimmerman for second degree murder by special prosecutor Angela Cory as being politically motivated.
“You’ve seen the affidavit of probable cause. What do you make of it,” Smerconish asked. “It won’t suffice,” Dershowitz replied without hesitation.
“Most affidavits of probable cause are very thin. This is so thin that it won’t make it past a judge on a second degree murder charge,” Dershowitz said. “There’s 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. “It’s not only thin, it’s irresponsible,” said Dershowitz.
Dershowitz went on to strongly criticize Cory’s 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 Martin’s murder.
“But it’s worse than that,” said Dershowitz. “It’s 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.”
As someone who has written a few affidavits in support of probable cause for arrest warrants and search warrants, it is clear there is no evidence of any crime in the affidavit. In fact, the affiants, supposedly experienced investigators, make certain conclusions in the affidavit unsupported by facts. They claim that Martin was profiled and committing no crime. They have no idea what Martin was doing wandering between houses, he certainly could have been engaged in planning his next burglary. They also accuse Zimmerman of profiling, a non-existent crime in the State of Florida. In fact they accuse him of a thought crime, not liking black people.
If a police officer had seen Martin walking between the houses he would have been justified in stopping Martin under Terry v. Ohio. Martin was suspicious, and given his criminal history, ripe for questioning by police. A police officer only needs reasonable suspicion based on articulable facts. Burglaries in the area, hooded figure walking between houses, typical behavior of burglars. Sufficient for a stop. And there ain't no law against talking to someone in public.
One hopes that this affidavit deplete of evidence will earn both a civil suit from Zimmerman and criminal prosecution for perjury. Perhaps even a Federal criminal prosecution under the Mittens Administration for civil rights violations.
Worse though is the Felix Dzerzhinsky of NRO, Maggie Gallagher, who previously called for Zimmerman's arrest only to assuage the unjustified anger of supposed middle-class blacks.
Townhall March 5, 2012 by Maggie Gallagher
The other thing we can know for sure is that this case has exploded in the media in part because it touches a raw nerve for every African-American in this country, but perhaps most especially African-American middle-class parents. Can they protect their sons? Will the law stand with them in this process?
If the answer is "no," then no African-American family in this country, however successful, however law-abiding, can feel safe.
If we don't empathize with this reaction on the part of black parents, we cannot in our turn be trusted or ask them to trust the legal process.
What we owe Trayvon and his grieving parents, and every other anxious parent in this case, is the truth.
Was it murder? Or justifiable self-defense?
That depends on uncovering what actually happened that night. We have only one process for discovering that truth, and it is the legal process. It is imperfect. But the last few weeks, if they have proven anything, have proven this: As a mechanism for uncovering truth and doing justice, trial by jury is infinitely superior to the barbaric ordeal of trial by media.
No, jury trials are for those who have been charged with a crime based on probable cause. We do not arrest people to assuage the anger of the perpetually outraged, especially racist hate mongers like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Eric Holder, and Barak Hussein Obama. Threats of rioting are not probable cause that George Zimmerman committed a crime.
And the Chekist cheers an arrest that even a leftist like Alan Dershowitz described as politically motivated and empty of any evidence supporting probable cause.
NRO April 12, 2012 by Maggie Gallagher
This is good news for our country. As I wrote in my column on this last week, trial by jury has to be better at uncovering truth than the barbaric ordeal of trial by media.
Since there is no evidence that Zimmerman committed a crime, as evidenced by an empty probable cause affidavit, there is nothing for a jury to decide. We do not first arrest, then find out the facts. The facts must be there first. Perhaps Gallagher should review the 5th Amendment:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger;
Arresting and charging someone to assuage those threatening riots is not allowed. One needs evidence first before charges may be brought.
A better way for black parents to protect their sons would to not get divorced, not allow their children to attack bus drivers, burglarize homes, and use or deal drugs. Another good idea would to loose the thug attitude, and have a real talk with their children about respect for others, not fill their heads with the lies about racism directed against blacks. Trayvon Martin most likely internalized the Al Sharpton racist ideology, but he expressed that hate to an armed white Hispanic and tried to give him a beat down. Smooth move Ex-lax, next time don't bring your fists to a gun fight. The real killer of Trayvon Martin were his parents who refused to supervise or discipline this young thug for his misbehavior, criminal activity, and huge chip on his shoulder concerning the alleged crimes of the white man in our society. Much like Erik Scott's girlfriend and his parents who refused to act to stop Scott's self-destructive downward spiral of abuse of prescription pain medication. Enablers never solve a problem, they make it worse.
It is also now clear why the ugly bitch of a prosecutor did not want to go to a Grand Jury. I know prosecutors who claim that they could get a Grand Jury to indict a ham sandwich, but that is mostly a comment on the intelligence of Grand Jurors. Not the brightest bunch. But what they mean is that they don't bring cases to the Grand Jury without overwhelming evidence, not just enough for probable cause, but enough to convict. That is why ham sandwiches get indicted, they are guilty, and the evidence is overwhelming. The evidence in this case, as admitted by Comrade Gallagher, is just not there. This indictment is all about assuaging a bunch of racists who threaten to riot if an innocent man is not arrested.