Innocent Until Proven Guilty

Article [VI]

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury (emphasis added) of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed ...

That's the Constitution's take on the rights of the accused. It can be found in the Bill of Rights, and, along with the Fifth Amendment, which provides that no person shall

be subject for the same offence (sic) to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb ...

I'll deal with the latter consideration presently (and briefly), but for the moment it's worth considering the dictates set by the Sixth Amendment as they apply to George Zimmerman.

On February 26, 2012, Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin. The details of that killing – a killing that is not in dispute – are not relevant to this discussion, nor are the strong feelings both of his supporters and his detractors. But it is reasonable to question whether a proceeding that began more than sixteen months after the incident represents a “speedy trial.” It is said that “justice delayed is justice denied,” but it is less clear – at least to me – what the optimal time is between such an incident and its judicial resolution.

In any event, it has been resolved. And “by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed.” Here the Constitution is, in my view, making an assumption of what is sometimes the issue to be being adjudicated. By its decision, the impartial jury specified that no crime had been committed. Because Zimmerman had not denied the killing, there was never a question of whether the “right” man was accused, only whether he had committed a crime. In this respect the situation was different from that involving O. J. Simpson, who had denied, and was found not guilty of committing what was clearly a crime. (Not everyone agreed with the decision, but by law he was not guilty.)

So it has been argued and resolved. And Zimmerman has been acquitted of the charges against him. It should be over, but it's not. There are many who believe that he is guilty, notwithstanding the judgment of the the jury. For them, the principle is not “innocent until proven guilty.” It isn't even “guilty until proven innocent.” Their view prior to the trial – “guilty, period” – was not, and could not be, changed by the trial and the verdict. That view was nourished by pre-trial publicity, which certainly sold a lot of newspapers, but has no legal standing. It is understandable that the victim's (and many would question the “victim” status) family would hold such an opinion, and would have taken it even before the trial, but it is regrettable that so many others would do so as well, and reject the jury's verdict after the legal issues have been argued. Apparently their minds were made up as soon as they learned of the incident. There were enough stories and opinions expressed by the media to make the trial itself superfluous – and an acquittal is, for them, certainly a perversion of justice. Even so, the Fifth Amendment, which precludes double jeopardy, should end the issue.

But it doesn't. Those who disagree with the jury are attempting to have the defendant tried again. While Zimmerman cannot “be subject for the same offence (sic) to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb,” the same incident can be labeled as a civil rights violation which would have serious consequences for him which would not put him in jeopardy of life or limb, but would certainly cause him great grief and expense, and extend his “speedy trial.”

I don't mean to minimize, in any way, the grief of the family for the loss of their son. And I am neither qualified to evaluate the specifics of the case nor to judge the impartiality of the jury deliberations, but as far as I can see, the jury system has served us well and should be respected. Sometimes the jury gets it wrong, sometimes there is jury tampering or prosecutorial misconduct, but these are a small minority of cases and there is no evidence of any of those having occurred in this case. The only problem is that a vocal group is unhappy with the verdict. And that is enough reason to find other grounds for trying the defendant. Or at least harassing him.

That may not be what the Founding Fathers had in mind, but they didn't count on American “know-how” when it came to finding loopholes. Especially for those who consider their sense of justice keener than that of a jury of their peers.