The Zimmerman/Martin Case is Not Over as Far as I am Concerned

I have more to say on the Zimmerman case and will post soon.  Unfortunately, I have a brief due, which has taken me away from Prawfs.  In the mean time, here are some thoughts from Andrew Ferguson, a UDC professor and formerly a lawyer with the Public Defender Service in DC.  Andrew is the author of Why Jury Duty Matters: A Citizen's Guide to Constitutional Action.  Since the verdict, he has been quoted in in USA Today and made his television debut on CNN’s The Situation Room.  He also had an ACS blog post which was picked up by Greta Van Susteren on Fox. http://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/on-the-zimmerman-jurors.

His bottom-line view: "I think that the jurors got it right following Florida law.  Ordinarily in that type of case, I would have expected a manslaughter verdict (reasonable but excessive use of force), but really the government tried a terrible case.  I don’t know why there is not more focus on the prosecutors rather than the jurors."   

He also reports: "I once had a very similar case involving a young man who lost a fight and was being beaten up (head into the concrete) by another man.  My client shot the man fearing for his life.  After seven days of deliberation the jury acquitted him on a self-defense theory.  I think overcoming self-defense in a homicide case is tough because there is only one person telling the story.  Even if you disbelieve him, the government still has to prove that he wasn’t acting in self defense beyond a reasonable doubt.  That is a mighty high burden.  Which is why my client is a free man now."