Did George Zimmerman’s prosecutors try to get him off?
By Jarvis DeBerry, NOLA.com | The Times-Picayune
July 16, 2013 at 10:05 AM
George Zimmerman was acquitted of killing Trayvon Martin, a New Orleans attorney complained to me Monday, because the prosecution didn’t want to win a conviction. The attorney, who has worked at Tulane and Broad as an assistant district attorney and as a defense lawyer, called me to say that he’s handled hundreds of homicide cases over his career and that he’s never seen prosecutors who want to win make the series of missteps that the Florida prosecutors made. So he’s convinced they lost on purpose. He offered six reasons for his belief that the state threw the case.
1) Prosecutors didn’t demand a change of venue. The recusal of the Seminole County district attorney and multiple judges from that county is proof that the case was a political hot potato and that there was a fear that there would be negative political ramifications following a Zimmerman conviction. Therefore, the state should have moved to have the venue changed.
2) They let jurors they didn’t want stay. Prosecutors tried but failed to have two jurors removed for cause. They could have had those two removed anyway by using their peremptory challenges, but instead, they let them stay on. Here’s a discussion at Slate Magazine about Juror B-37 in particular and the peculiar decision by prosecutors not to have her removed. A day after the trial she reportedly contacted a literary agent to “write” a book about the trial. But after social-media outrage, that literary agent has now decided against the deal.