This is a gross oversimplification of the legal process and guiding principles. A trial is not the default course of action whenever a bad event happens. We have district attorneys for a reason; they are supposed to be the first line of triage, to determine what is a good case, and what is not.
Are you proposing that we rely on public opinion to decide if we should charge people with crimes? Are you willing to have very personable and charismatic criminals be able to get away with anything they want?
First, the DA’s office would have to overrule its previous decision directing the investigating officer not to lay charges (even though he planned to).
Yes, the totality of the evidence is important. Why, whne and where did the altercation take place? Where was the vehicle parked?
The key question, it seems to me, is who went after whom? Common thought on one side seems to be that Zimmerman accosted a guy walking through the neighbourhood and created a situtation that escalated into a fight and gunshot. In that case, being attacked is not grounds for a self-defense acquittal, if he went toward and started the confrontation.
Zimmerman’s story is that he had turned around without saying anything and was going back to the car, when he was followed there, accosted, beat up, and defended himself.
Sadly, unless it is a major natiopnal case like this, most homicides don’t get the full CSI treatment. Some obvious clues should be the location and direction of the fight and shot, timeline of calls (including Trayvon’s girlfiend), and so on. Likely, we will never know for sure.
Well, since it could be a capital case, in Florida the DA must call a Grand Jury, which is exactly what he has done.
So thus, as far as the unproven allegation that the Prosecutors office directed the Investigator not to lay charges, there could have been legal reason to do so, as they didn’t want the Police charging him with Assault, instead of bring a GJ indictment for Murder.
Also, it may have been too late at that point in time to make a “at the scene arrest” which seems to be needed in a SYG state. A later arrest for Murder would require a GJ indictment.
This is exactly what they are doing, and it’s pretty standard procedure with someone who isn’t a flight risk.
I will still try to keep this in GQ territory. Talking about the particular case requires assumptions and knowing what certain individuals are thinking.
A grant jury only finds if there is probable cause. Only probable cause. I have never been involved in a case in which a case was brought before the grand jury prior to charges being filed. In general a grand jury listens to a case in which the prosecutor deemed strong enough to move forward and they confirm probable cause. The cases I have heard about in which a GJ hears a case without charges were when it was a police shooting (to avoid the appearence of favoritism) or when it’s politically motivated.
In a perfect world the guilty should always be punished. In our system we have decided to make it difficult to convict anyone so that it is unlikely the innocent are punished. People tend to forget that in the middle or their outrage. I did not know one cop that was surprised they couldn’t get a conviction in the Casey Anthony case for instance. It has nothing to do with people not being interested in justice.
One thing to remember is that as soon as a suspect is charged the clock begins ticking because the constitution guarantees the right to a speedy trial. This means that a suspect is arrested at the end of the investigation not at the beginning (if at all). This gives the prosecution the maximum time to build a case and since they only get one shot they want to give it the best shot they can. If a DA thinks a case is marginal then they may delay charging the suspect while they hope for more evidence to be uncovered.