General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsACLU to Holder: No Federal hate crime prosecution for Zimmerman
We are writing to clearly state the ACLUs position on whether or not the
Department of Justice (DOJ) should consider bringing federal civil rights or hate crimes charges as a result of the state court acquittal in the George Zimmerman case.
Even though the Supreme Court permits a federal prosecution following a state prosecution, the ACLU believes the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Constitution protects someone from being prosecuted in another court for charges arising from the same transaction. A jury found Zimmerman not guilty, and that should be the end of the criminal case.
http://www.aclu.org/racial-justice/aclu-letter-attorney-general-eric-holder-re-george-zimmerman-case
http://www.aclu.org/files/assets/aclu_letter_to_ag_holder_re_gzimmerman_case.pdf
exboyfil
(17,863 posts)as much as I want to see Zimmerman punished for manslaughter, it really is not a civil rights case. The jury made their judgment on the facts gathered and presented. I would pursue whether unequal justice occurs in the Sanford police department and the district attorney's office. That is a potential civil rights violation. Zimmerman probably benefited from the NHI (no humans involved) attitude of the police on that night.
BainsBane
(53,035 posts)but I think most people realize it's highly unlikely they will bring a federal charge.
hack89
(39,171 posts)they would have to prove that racial animus the the primary reason Z killed TM. Considering how race played an almost non-existent role in Z's trial, I can't see how the Feds would be able to do it.
tumtum
(438 posts)I seem to remember something to that effect.
BainsBane
(53,035 posts)Obviously it was about race. Ever thinking person knows that. The case being about race, however, and having proof that Zimmerman consciously killed Trayvon because he was black are two different things.
tumtum
(438 posts)Because of my lack of knowledge of the circumstances and the trial, I can't make that judgement, but I'll take your word for it.
BainsBane
(53,035 posts)It's the whole understanding of the case and public controversy. It's why Zimmerman decide to focus on Trayvon in the first place.
tumtum
(438 posts)and the resulting trial and verdict. Knowledge is a good thing.
BainsBane
(53,035 posts)The burden has been lowered since 2009 with the Mathew Shepard law, but it is still a higher legal hurdle than manslaughter or second degree murder.
jimboss
(28 posts)tumtum
(438 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Gregorian
(23,867 posts)I'm surprised such a basic part of law didn't preempt the DOJ from even bringing it up. Which makes me wonder again.
Maybe in cases where justice is so flawed...I can't believe he got away without any penalty.
onenote
(42,712 posts)A federal civil rights case being brought is unlikely, but not because the DOJ will conclude it would violate the Double Jeopardy clause (or at least I hope not). If they don't bring a claim the decision should be based on whether there is sufficient evidence.
Holding that double jeopardy applies would undercut the ability to use the civil rights laws in a lot of situations. The courts have not treated civil rights cases as barred by double jeopardy because of the principle that each "sovereign" can bring its own criminal charges against a person. The state is one sovereign, and the federal government is another sovereign.
You will note that the ACLU doesn't cite any authority for its Double Jeopardy assertion.
AllINeedIsCoffee
(772 posts)Where do I send my check?
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Everyone loves the ACLU until they defend the constitutional rights of somebody who is unpopular.
AllINeedIsCoffee
(772 posts)I don't look to them when formulating an opinion on an issue.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)markiv
(1,489 posts)that they support evil
that canard that civil rights would first start with unpopular groups is just a cover story
Enrique
(27,461 posts)I agree with the ACLU on this, and I disagree with for example Cornel West, who wants federal charges.
What about you? If Holder decides to come down with ACLU on this, will you still call it pro-Zimmerman?
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)Paladin
(28,262 posts)Just pointing it out, because it doesn't happen very often. The ACLU doesn't buy into the LaPierre/Scalia interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, and our resident gun folks generally direct as much scorn toward the ACLU as they do toward Democratic politicians.
hack89
(39,171 posts)As for the 2nd Amendment, I agree with both the President and our party platform - gun ownership is an individual right. Do you agree with President Obama on the issue?
struggle4progress
(118,290 posts)... This policy precludes the initiation or continuation of a federal prosecution, following a prior state or federal prosecution based on substantially the same act(s) or transaction(s) unless three substantive prerequisites are satisfied: first, the matter must involve a substantial federal interest; second, the prior prosecution must have left that interest demonstrably unvindicated; and third, applying the same test that is applicable to all federal prosecutions, the government must believe that the defendant's conduct constitutes a federal offense, and that the admissible evidence probably will be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction by an unbiased trier of fact. In addition, there is a procedural prerequisite to be satisfied, that is, the prosecution must be approved by the appropriate Assistant Attorney General ...