In the aftermath of the George Zimmerman trial you have a flood of experts grading the attorneys in the case. The consensus appears to be that the prosecutor’s performance was subpar in failing to obtain a conviction and the defense was magnificent in obtaining an acquittal. I disagree. In view of the obstacles the prosecution faced, it would have needed a miracle to prevail, and almost any lawyer could have successfully defended Zimmerman. Although I only know what I read in the newspaper and see on television about the proceedings, my past experience as a prosecution attorney is the basis of my comments.
You could make a good argument that the prosecution was doomed from the beginning by the failure of the local authorities to have charged Zimmerman with a crime and had him arrested forthwith. A delay of more than four weeks from the date of the altercation to the date of Zimmerman’s arrest cast a cloud over the case from the outset. The public would assume that this failure to act promptly was because it was a weak case. I suppose you could argue that race was a factor in the decision of the local authorities, but we will never know.
The fact that the Florida Attorney General had to take the case out of the hands of the local prosecutor in order for charges to be filed may have been the biggest hurdle to overcome. Such action makes it appear that politics was the reason for the filing. You can imagine that the local authorities were not happy with this development, which made them look either incompetent or prejudiced, and you would think that residents would tend to sympathize with local authorities. It is just possible that their revenge for such mistreatment was to root for the defense, believing that an acquittal would prove they were right by not fi ling the charge.
It is common knowledge that the state can only prevail in a criminal proceeding if it has witnesses who can convince a jury of the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. As the trial progressed it was obvious that some of the state’s witnesses were not very convincing, either because of stage fright, prejudice, an effective cross-examination by the defendant’s attorney or a combination of all three factors. The crowning blow to the state’s case occurred when the lead investigator testified that he believed that either the defendant was telling the truth when he said he was acting in self-defense, or was an accomplished liar. I would imagine that the prosecutor almost fainted when he heard this. You know that in preparing for the trial the state’s attorneys would rehearse the testimony of their witnesses, and the officer in question would never have been called to the stand if it was known that his testimony would help the defense. For your own law enforcement witness to sabotage your case is, to say the least, most unusual. I would guess that the prosecutors would need a strong drink after the trial was recessed.
When the time came for the state to select someone to act as the lead prosecutor I doubt if there were a lot of volunteers. Any attorney could see the problems in obtaining a good result, and who wants to be saddled with a loser, especially in such a high profile proceeding? I think the prosecutors gave it their best shot, and I am reluctant to criticize them, except for their failure to object when the defense called an expert witness to testify as to the position of the bodies and the firearm, when he was allowed to go well beyond his expertise. It was as if the state by this time knew they were in trouble and were in a daze.
I also believe that the media, along with the court, created another problem for the prosecution over the issue of whether the court should allow the jury to consider returning a lesser verdict of manslaughter. The law in Florida may be difterent than in Arkansas, but I always understood that such a ruling was standard in such a proceeding, but it appeared that the defense was given too much latitude in pretending that this was a controversial issue. The way it was handled gave the impression that the prosecution had given up on second degree murder. However, it may be that the jury was never aware of this discussion, and if so, this would be a non-factor.