If the federal prosecutors can identify a criminal charge that they, in good faith, believe Zimmerman violated, they should absolutely bring it. To hold otherwise is to ignore our system of dual sovereignty.
Now, I agree that the Feds should not charge Zimmerman, but that’s because his conduct was not violative of any federal criminal statutes. It’s NOT because such a charge would somehow subvert our liberties.
He’s saying that he read every published opinion on the subject. This is likely because there aren’t many published opinions in this area, which makes sense given the heavy burden of proof in such cases.
Bricker, my apologies if you’ve also read the unpublished opinions available in WL or Lexis.
I don’t think deltasigma understands that federal charges in cases like these are quite rare. S/he may be operating under the assumption that the federal government acts as a backstop in murder cases, which obviously isn’t so.
From that link: “… the prosecution’s proving the evidence of uttered racial slurs were not self-sufficient for conviction.” So there’s a case in which the prosecution had defendants who had used racial slurs during the commission of the crime, and even that was not enough. Here, in contrast, we have no racial slurs.
I will research this issue in more detail, but I believe the answer is that federal law applies the law of the state in which the offense occurs.
For the Feds, the real problem is no good proof of racial animus. The jury in a federal case would have to hear evidence that proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the primary reason Zimmerman killed Martin was his hatred of Martin’s race.
I would. Even if Zimmerman has to show self-defense by preponderance of the evidence, his wounds create a prima facie showing.
Zero, huh? Why is that?
I think it’s unlikely, but not zero. What is your reasoning?
Good to know, but that’s not the point. I actually took a couple courses in Civil Rights in law school, unfortunately I remember virtually none of it except the stories told by one of my profs, Arthur Kinoy, an early leader in the civil rights movement (now accuse me of pulling THAT name out of my ass). And the fact of the matter is that it is a very specialized area of the law on which I would want the opinion of at least a Constitutional lawyer. Is Bricker a constitutional lawyer? I’m guessing not.
Then what’s your point? I clerked for two federal judges (district and COA) and this issue doesn’t seem terribly complex to me. Why do you think we need a constitutional law specialist here? And, if you want the opinion of a constitutional law specialist, I’ll offer you this:
And in answering the question of whether a criminal exposure exists, I would want the opinion of a criminal defense lawyer.
Now, to the question of what civil legal pitfalls might exist, I agree that my expertise is not all that valuable, and I would never hold myself out as an expert in civil rights law as a whole. But as to criminal law? Yes, that’s exactly my area of expertise.
And this is not remotely murky or complex. You have no clue what you’re talking about.
Because so many people are invested in the idea that GZ could have been motivated by racial animus, let me emphasize that the feds would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he actually was motivated primarily by racial animus.
Not that he could have been motivated partly by racial animus. But that he was motivated primarily by racial animus. Not that he was motivated primarily by racial animus when he followed TM, but when he pulled the trigger. Given the forensic evidence, that is a near impossibility.
You still haven’t answered my original question which I will now make more specific since that’s what you seem to prefer. Have you reviewed every case interpreting every federal statute under which Zimmerman may still be prosecuted regarding the death of Martin and concerning which race MAY BE CONSIDERED and determined that there is no chance of any such prosecution?
Murder can be a federal crime if certain conditions apply to the alleged murder, such as occurring on federal property or the victim is a federal employee.
