@Moment-in-Time,
Quote:Well, this is what happens when one is poor and with limited funds. If Trayvon's parents had sufficient funds they might have been able to get a first-class legal defense. The private lawyer for Trayvon's parents (Crump) was a disappointment as well, but that made no difference in the outcome
The State of Florida does not have limited funds--and that's who represented Trayvon Martin in this action. The parents did not have to fund any legal defense--their son was not the defendant.
Benjamin Crump, who has acted on the Martin's behalf, is a top-notch civil attorney, and he was instrumental in helping them to get Zimmerman arrested and charged. If they decide to bring a wrongful death civil suit against Zimmerman, Crump would be an excellent choice to represent them in that--he already has won a $7 million+ judgment to his credit. In such a case, the attorney works on a consignment basis, so the Martin's ability to pay would not be a factor.
I think the prosecution was hampered because this case was poorly handled from the start, in evidence collection and preservation of evidence. No toxicology tests were even done on Zimmerman. And the police the night of the shooting did not know Trayvon Martin belonged in that community, that he was a guest there, and he had no ID on him. So they may have assumed he was some sort of criminal trespasser and prematurely bought Zimmerman's version of events. Had they known that this was just a kid returning to a residence there, after a trip to the store, everything about this case might have been handled differently from the start, and they might have scrutinized Zimmerman very differently, and might well have arrested him that night--they did classify this homicide as "unnecessary".
And, generally, the prosecution has the full cooperation of the police when a case goes to trial, and that was clearly missing in this case because of what went on beforehand--the chief investigator on this case, who had wanted Zimmerman arrested after the shooting, and who was concerned about the inconsistencies in Zimmerman's account of events, wound up being demoted before he testified at trial, and the chief of police was forced to resign. So, the police, particularly that demoted chief investigator, were almost like hostile witnesses for the prosecution, and they downplayed the concerns they had had about Zimmerman's credibility. It was almost like they were trying to sabotage the prosecution's case as some sort of payback.
And there were no witnesses who really saw what happened between Zimmerman and Martin. And although the state's voice analysis experts all felt it was Martin's voice that could be heard screaming for help, this evidence was ruled as inadmissible because of concerns about the technology used.
And finally, Rachel Jeantel was a very key witness for the prosecution and she was not well prepared by them. Her demeanor may have affected her credibility with the jury, and the prosecution, or even her own lawyer, should have worked with her to help her feel more comfortable on the witness stand so that she wouldn't feel so vulnerable. She clearly was reluctant to be there, and I can't say I'd blame her, particularly given the ridicule she was subjected to. I personally found her refreshingly natural and spontaneous, and very credible, but I also found it painful watching the defense attorney trying to humiliate her.
Jeantel was clearly from a lower class background than the Martin family, and because her demeanor was more "ghetto" the jury may have made the assumption that Martin was also considerably more ghetto than he actually was, and that he was the type to "have an attitude", just like Jeantel--when neither was probably the case. Jeantel wasn't even that close a friend of Martin's. They had known each other as young children, but apparently had reconnected only two weeks before the shooting. So Jeantel certainly wasn't the ideal witness the prosecution might have wanted, but she was the one on the phone with Martin while Zimmerman was following him, and her testimony indicated that Martin had been trying to avoid Zimmerman and that it was Zimmerman who had provoked the fight.
But Jeantel's testimony seems not to have had the impact with the jury it really should have had, probably because this mostly white jury could not culturally connect with her, or even understand her language or behavior--and one juror who spoke out voiced that very clearly. And that would be because of a racial/cultural divide, and one that would probably not have happened if there had been even one black person on that jury, or someone who simply had more experience interacting with people from backgrounds just like Jeantel's. So I do think that was one way that racial factors did affect this trial and the verdict--it allowed a key witness for the prosecution to be too easily dismissed or disregarded because the jury just may have been unable to relate to her because of matters like race and class.
So, without enough good, well preserved evidence, and without eye-witnesses who could testify to what happened, and how it began, and without the full cooperation of the police, and with a flawed key witness, like Jeantel, who might not have been fully convincing for a jury in reporting what Martin was saying and doing and feeling just prior to the shooting, and without a clear way to force Zimmerman to take the stand, the prosecution didn't have much to work with. And, on top of that, they were forced to stretch for a second degree murder conviction in a case they might have won had they just focused on manslaughter.
I think the prosecution did a more than decent effort, given what they had to work with. Could they have done better? Yes. They gave the defense too much leeway to use smoke and mirror tactics without then attacking those forcefully enough. But I'm not sure anything might have changed the outcome--under Florida law the jury had to give Zimmerman the benefit of the doubt regarding self defense--unless the prosecution could have shown that Zimmerman's reckless actions in bringing the confrontation about satisfied the elements for manslaughter. Had they more carefully summed that up for the jurors they might have gotten a manslaughter conviction, since half the jury was convinced of that when deliberations first started.
But I really think the prosecution did the best they could, all things considered.
I think a civil trial, if one takes place, will be quite different because Zimmerman will have to testify. That would change things considerably. He can be discredited on cross-examination--his account is inconsistent, contradictory, and in many ways, at odds with the physical evidence. That would come across much more clearly with him on the witness stand.
