Introduction
George Michael Zimmerman is a Hispanic American known for fatally shooting an African American teenager named Trayvon Martin (Hancock, 2012). The incident happened on 26th February 2012 in Sanford, Florida. It is alleged that Zimmerman shot Martin amid a confrontation between them after he had called the Sanford Police Department for help (French, 2012).
Police arrived shortly after Zimmerman had shot Martin. Zimmerman sustained a few head injuries that were treated before the police took him into custody for interrogation. He was released a few hours later due to a lack of evidence and his insistence that he was defending himself. However, his release sparked numerous protests as people wanted the police to arrest him again and conduct thorough investigations into the incident (Holloway, 2013).
Reports indicate that Zimmerman had previous encounters with the police before this incident. In 2005, he had two encounters with law enforcement agencies in Florida. First, he was arrested for shoving an undercover security agent. Second, his girlfriend had filed a restraint order against him in the same year for allegations of domestic violence. In 2013, Zimmerman was arrested after his wife said he had threatened her and her parents with a gun (French, 2012). Zimmerman has faced numerous charges of domestic violence and illegal use of firearms. Legal experts argue that Martin’s shooting was another incident that added to the number of encounters Zimmerman had with police officers and was likely to hurt his reputation during this prosecution. Zimmerman was taken to court to face charges of manslaughter and violation of human rights on 11th April 2012 (Hancock, 2012).
State of Florida vs. George Zimmerman
Pretrial hearing
A pretrial hearing for this case was held on 12th April 2012. Judge Mark Herr approved the legitimacy of the official declaration with regard to knowing the probable cause of the teenager’s murder (Vivian, 2013). Zimmerman was released on a bond that was later revoked following claims that his wife had lied to the court about their financial situation. In the second bond hearing, Zimmerman’s wife was charged with a criminal offense of making false statements under oath. Following his second arrest, Zimmerman was released on a bond of $ 1 million. It was much higher compared to the initial bond of $150, 000 (French, 2012). After the bond hearing, Zimmerman’s legal representatives accused Judge Lester of having preconceived notions against his client with regard to the issue of misleading the court. He wanted him to be removed from the case and have another judge to decide it.
The petition was successful, as the Court of Appeal assigned the case to Judge Debra Nelson (NeJame, 2012). Zimmerman’s lawyers also sought to have an immunity hearing for their client as the Florida State laws allow the use of force in certain instances. According to the Stand Your Ground law, someone is allowed to use force when they are defending themselves from a situation with potential for serious injuries (French, 2012). Zimmerman sought to have such kind of immunity during his prosecution case because his situation related to the provisions in that law.
Evidence
As part of their preparations for the trial, the defense team was allowed to access crucial information about Martin that included phone records, posts on social networking sites, and school records. The reason for doing this was to establish whether Martin had showed any traits of violent behavior towards friends, teachers, and classmates in the past (Holloway, 2013). Martin’s parents were not impressed by the actions of the defense team because they felt their son’s reputation and character was likely to be compromised (NeJame, 2012). On the other hand, the judge ordered the defense team to provide the court with all Zimmerman’s medical records for use during the prosecution case. The court was also provided with information given to an ABC News journalist by one of Martin’s friends. The female friend who appeared in the case as a prosecution witness claimed that they had communicated with Martin moments before he was shot (Toporek, 2013). A lot of evidence was presented during the prosecution case. It included things such as medical records, autopsy report of Martin’s body, witness statements, photos, and cell phone data among others (French, 2012).
In establishing the admissibility of evidence, Judge Nelson made a number of rulings. First, he ruled that any information relating to Martin’s record in school, drug use, fights, photos, and cell phone records be left out of the case unless developments in the prosecution made them relevant (Anita, 2015). Second, he ruled that all the sound technicians involved in preparing audio tapes used in the case were to testify because the defense team had questioned the credibility of the technology they had used (Toporek, 2013). The audio experts were used to establish the real person that was asking for help between the two people involved in the shooting. Third, he ruled that the audio tapes were not reliable enough because the sound technicians came up with contrasting conclusions (Anita, 2015). Forth, the judge ruled that the defense team was justified to use Martin’s alleged drug use before the shooting as a probable reason for his impaired judgment, although it could not constitute part of the evidence (NeJame, 2012).
Opening statements
The prosecution case started on 10th June 2013 in Sanford, Florida. Zimmerman was accused of murdering Trayvon Martin on 26th February 2012 in a Florida neighborhood. The written statement filed by the state prosecutor and read before the jury by assistant prosecutor John Guy supported all charges made against Zimmerman (Holloway, 2013). The affidavit gave the probable reasons that led to the shooting. It claimed that Martin was racially profiled, confronted and shot by Zimmerman despite not having committed any crime. Guy made reference to comments made by Zimmerman before calling the police, which he described as racially obnoxious (Toporek, 2013). He also claimed that Zimmerman was a liar and a bully who took advantage of his big physique to harass Martin. According to Angela Corey, the special prosecutor for Florida State in this case, Zimmerman turned himself to the police said that the he shot martin accidentally after a confrontation between them developed (Holloway, 2013). Guy further added that Zimmerman was suffering from an identity crisis evidenced by his portrayed behavior of an ambitious and aspiring young person who assumed the duty of a police officer (Lagstein, 2014).
In the opening statement, the defense team argued that their client wanted the state to cover his expenses for the case because he could not afford it. Don West, one of Zimmerman’s legal representatives told the judge that his client shot Martin accidentally after he was attacked and needed to defend himself (Holloway, 2013). He said that Martin punched Zimmerman and resulted in him hitting the ground with his head. West used recordings of calls made by Zimmerman asking for help from the police to claim that Martin refused to go home after noticing he was being observed by his client. Instead, Martin chose to start a confrontation with Zimmerman (Lagstein, 2014). West used a range of evidence to support his claims and prove the innocence of Zimmerman in Martin’s shooting.
One piece of evidence used by the defense team was photos showing the head injuries sustained by Zimmerman and medical records from the treatment center (Holloway, 2013). Defense witnesses that included police officers gave an account of the incident. They also explained the behavior of Zimmerman immediately after Martin was shot. After the court session was adjourned for a few minutes, West continued with his statement by saying that Zimmerman mistakenly shot Martin at contact range (Hancock, 2012). This meant that the two were involved in a heavy altercation that involved body contact. This could have been the cause of the error that resulted in Martin being shot.
Witness testimonies and the issue of racial profiling
A number of witnesses gave their testimonies with regard to Martin’s shooting. Most of the prosecution witnesses said that during the fateful day, there was nothing unusual about Martin’s behavior. He was the same person they interacted with everyday and did not show any signs of impairment. One of the main prosecution witnesses was Ramona Rumph who worked in the sheriff’s office (NeJame, 2012). Rumph was brought by the prosecution team to explain the way police emergency lines function. In addition, he explained the way calls are differentiated for purposes of making follow ups and getting the caller’s address. He attested that most of the witnesses in the case had made calls to 991 immediately after the Martin was shot (Capehart, 2013). However, the prosecution team failed to respond to queries made by the defense team with regard to emergency calls made by Zimmerman and whether there was anything unusual about them in terms of the caller’s urgency. All the police officers involved in the arrest and interrogation of Zimmerman also testified and gave their own accounts of the way they assessed the incident (Lagstein, 2014). Most of them argued to show that the accused was innocent and had no other option, especially after Martin started an unwarranted confrontation (Capehart, 2013). They believed that Zimmerman had the right to defend himself, although killing Martin was not his primary intention but just a mistake.
The defense team presented a number of witnesses who showed their faith in claims by Zimmerman that he was in the process of defending himself when the unfortunate incident occurred (Palmer, 2013). One of the defense witnesses was Zimmerman’s mother who said that the screaming by his son indicated that he was in danger and highly terrified. Zimmerman’s legal representatives were always quick to defend their client every time statements made to question his credibility were put across. However, the defense team also had a hard time trying to convince the judge that statements made by Zimmerman were not racially provocative (Palmer, 2013). Although Zimmerman agreed that the comments were not as friendly as he intended them to be, there was no good reason to show that he made them because of Martin’s ethnicity. The defense team responded to this issue by stating that the prosecution case was to basically assess whether Zimmerman’s actions were right or wrong and not about racial profiling (Vivian, 2013). The closing statement by West clearly showed that the case was not about racial profiling because he asked what the verdict would have been if Martin happened to be the one who shot Zimmerman. From the evidence presented during the prosecution, the influence of racial profiling was completely lacking with regard to the events that led to Martin’s shooting (Vivian, 2013).
Verdict and aftermath
Before the verdict of this case was made, a number of legal experts had expressed their confidence in the innocence of Zimmerman. They argued that there was a lack of evidence to prove that Zimmerman killed Martin on racial grounds (Vivian, 2013). This is exactly what happened on 13th July 2013 when the jury gave the verdict. Zimmerman was declared not guilty of having committed a second-degree murder and manslaughter. The verdict was received with mixed reactions from the public, the defense team, and Martin’s family. The defense team led by Mark O’Mara and Don West was ecstatic with the outcome of the case because they felt that justice had been served (Palmer, 2013). However, west was somehow still unhappy because their client had gone to jail yet he had not committed any crime. He described the whole prosecution case against their client as a disgrace and tragedy that was rescued by the jury. The extended family of Zimmerman was also pleased with the jury’s verdict. However, Zimmerman was not seen in public for several days after the verdict (Capehart, 2013).
Martin’s family failed to give many comments regarding the verdict, although they seemed discontent with the way their son’s killer was not found guilty. Reactions from the public were mixed, with supporters of Zimmerman and Martin’s family having contrasting reactions. Some of them argued that Zimmerman would probably not have gone through the prosecution if he was black (Anita, 2015). There were numerous reports of protest and vandalism in the streets by members of the public who were not pleased with the verdict. Legal experts argued that such incidents showed people’s thoughts with regard to Martin’s shooting and the overall issue of racial profiling in America (Palmer, 2013). President Barrack Obama also gave his reaction to the case with special interest in the issue of racial profiling and its impact on relations across various groups in the country. He felt that any African American could have been Martin several years ago because racial profiling was very prevalent (Anita, 2015). However, he asked all Americans to embrace each other and live as one community. Reactions from civil rights activists showed discontent with the verdict as they vowed to make an intervention and ensure that Zimmerman faced charges for violation of civil rights (Anita, 2015).
Conclusion
Many people accused Zimmerman of racially profiling Martin, a factor they believed contributed to the shooting. People expressed different opinions about the involvement of racial profiling in the shooting. The concept of racial profiling by law enforcement officers played a crucial role in the major developments that happened in this case, especially from the prosecution team. Legal experts argue that security agents have a right to defend themselves whenever someone challenges an intervention in their capacity as law enforcement officers. Lack of evidence to prove claims of racial profiling and manslaughter led to a jury verdict that Zimmerman was not guilty. The verdict was a clear indication that the justice system is always fair regardless of someone’s past or perceptions that people develop about criminal activities.
References
Anita, J. (2015). The influence of the Trayvon Martin shooting on racial socialization practices of African American parents. Journal of Black Psychology, 41(1), 75-89.
Capehart, J. (2013). Race and the George Zimmerman Trial. Web.
French, D. (2012). Conservatives and the Trayvon Martin case: Has the right rushed to the wrong judgment? Commentary, 133(6), 51-60.
Hancock, A. (2012). Trayvon Martin and the politics of disgust. Theory & Event, 15(3), 20-45.
Holloway, C. (2013). The Zimmerman Trial, Racial Profiling, and Social Justice. Web.
Lagstein, A. (2014). Beyond the George Zimmerman trial: The duty to retreat and those who contribute to their own need to use deadly self-defense. Harvard Journal on Racial & Ethnic Studies, 30(2), 367-394.
NeJame, M. (2012). Trayvon Martin Shooting Wasn’t a Case of Racial Profiling. Web.
Palmer, G. (2013). Dissecting the killing of Trayvon Martin: The power factor. Journal of Social Action in Counseling & Psychology, 5(1), 126-130.
Toporek, R. (2013). Violence against individuals and communities: Reflecting on the Trayvon Martin case- An introduction to the special issue. Journal of Social Action in Counseling & Psychology, 5(1), 1-10.
Vivian, A. (2013). What if Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman were White? Web.