>> Knownot: "OTOH, the premise for the only one example
>> you give - that it is an "undisputed fact that it was Z
>> who started the brawl" - is mistaken. That claim was
>> very much disputed at trial "
>
> I guess a bunch of trial shysters can dispute even that
> the Earth is round and the Sun rises in the East ;)
My strong preference to remain here only as a "lurker" besides other reasons to which I alluded earlier continue to make me hesitate to respond. This is all the more so because I believe that rehashing what occurred at an essentially trivial if for the most part seriously misrepresented while overly politicized trial is tedious. However, I do respond because your substitution earlier and again above of fantasy for actuality -- not merely undermined and instead substantially contradicted by what occurred in the Z trial -- unfortunately typifies too much discussion not only about the Z trial, in particular, but also other political/cultural commentary as a basis for political action (and inaction) more generally and therefore ought not be left unchallenged.
Still, if you a priori or otherwise rigidly define "shysters" as a synonym for all lawyers, so be it. But your rejoinder above and attempted disanalogous analogy below really are classic examples merely of a just-so story -- here, you willy-nilly assuming and asserting what is not disputable but without regard to and so you not even addressing much less engaging and refuting actual evidence to the contrary.
But, Yes - of course there was (both sides) lawyer argument about what inferences the jury ought/oughtn't draw from the TESTIMONY of WITNESSES and related forensic and other EVIDENCE at trial. However, re. the very important at trial, Who attacked who and how first? question: While it was Z's terribly bad judgment and initial acts that set in motion the eventual acts that concluded with him shooting and killing M, it was ear-and-eye *witnesses* -- neighbors (of various ethnicities) -- who testified that, in a neighborhood recently victimized by burglaries and other crimes by young men, it was M, not Z, who was the initial then ongoing assaulter.
That M was the attacker seriously endangering Z was supported, in addition to other evidence at trial, by an eminent because extraordinarily well-qualified/actual, not a junk-science, expert whose testimony was very credible and persuasive in confirming these other witnesses' testimony, i.e, that Z shot M from a position on the ground with M straddling over him while having seriously injured Z.
It also appears that you overlook that at a criminal trial -- the immediate context here -- as a basic constitutional and otherwise law prescribed matter, the jury (as like juries elsewhere) was not required affirmatively believe and adopt the above summary as fact since, instead, it was required to acquit if it had a reasonable doubt that Z was not guilty of the crimes as charged. Nor based on the testimony at trial and post-trial actual reporting (i.e., not merely politically biased bloviating) is there any basis in fact to conclude that the jury did not in good faith have reasons its members articulated to one another during deliberations for their doubt.
> [ WS added: ]
> But just think for a while - you are coming home minding
> your own business, a guy approaches you and wants something,
> you tell him to get lost, he does not, a scuffle follows during
> which he pulls out a gun and shoots you. If that guy were
> black, do you really think that this jury would find him not
> guilty even if the prosecutors did a less than stellar job?
> I sincerely doubt.
Just think for a while - according to numerous witnesses' testimony and other evidence at trial, it wasn't a "scuffle" that characterized the Z-w-M encounter.
And just think further for a while - there is not anything I said or implied that disputed in any way that there remains an egregiously pernicious reality in most of the U.S. (not least in Sanford, Fla., and in Fla. criminal prosecutions) of continuing racism that too often is acted out, among other things, in *other* prosecutions than in the Z prosecution.*
----------------------------------------------------
* Except that her use of statistics can and arguably should be
questioned in some respects, Prof. Michelle Alexander's over
-all brilliant "The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the
Age of Colorblindness" is a "must read" and, more importantly,
basis for serious action in this connection.
Just think a bit more for a while - Why do you seem to believe that Just Making Sh*t Up contributes to meaningful efforts to overcome theses horrible realities?
> Regarding poor performance of the prosecutor - Z's dad
> was in law enforcement and I am willing to bet that these
> guys closed ranks and decided to protect one of their own.
> It happens regularly afaik. That is why they initially did
> not file any charges, but when they were forced to file
> them after public outrage, they did it in such a way that
> nothing happen.
Evidence? And BTW, you here conflate local police "they" with state-wide/prosecutor "they". Also BTW, I have not suggested, because there are not relevant facts on the basis of which one reasonably can suggest, that when I said that the prosecution was hugely incompetent, I was implying that the prosecution deliberately tanked/tossed the trial.
To the contrary, the two younger assistant prosecutors were competent (in some ways, substantially more than only that) and wanted a conviction, but they were constrained by an appalling overall strategy evidently decided by others senior to them as exacerbated by a mishandling of and also a lack of evidence, and it was mostly the senior trial lawyer, who obviously was instrumental in formulating trial strategy and did most of the witness questioning and primary summation (and who also seemingly wanted a conviction), who was worse than worse than ineffectual, often in painful to watch/hear ways.
In sum, my core claim is less about the Z trial than the fundamentally not credible uses to which it is put. That is, I share what appears to be your basic concern as summarized in your attempted but, insofar as the Z and M encounter and Z's ultimately killing M is concerned, misplaced analogy. It is just that, as most relevant here, the P.R. exploitation of that case, the M' parents' attorney's (apparently not his mother and father themselves) many public misrepresentations of what occurred in his apparent desire less to deal with the sorts of issues to which you refer than to try to set the stage for his benefit of a contemplated civil trial, etc., etc., undermines, it does not advance, the goals which presumably you would like to see attained.
> While we are at that - is there any federal oversight
> of prosecutorial misconduct? I understand that one
> can claim incompetent defense . . .
. . . "ineffective assistance of counsel" . . .
> . . . as grounds for a new trial, but does that go the
> other way?
Basically, No. And attempts civilly to sue even prosecutors who provably behaved in maliciously dishonest ways to obtain wrongful convictions are routinely dismissed on "immunity" grounds which appellate courts including the Supremes sustain. See for instance, Connick v. Thompson (originally: Thompson v. Connick), 131 S.Ct. 1350, a case in which a man who had spent fourteen years in jail because, in violation of (putative but routinely ignored) constitutional requirements (see, Brady v. Maryland, 83 S. Ct. 1194), his prosecutors deliberately withheld clearly exculpatory blood evidence from his defense attorneys, in which he proved this, and more, at trial as a result of which the jury awarded him $14-mnillion in damages, but in which the Supremes overturned that award; and see generally in this connection, Imbler v. PachMan, 96 S. Ct. 984.
And/but returning to the Z case in particular: You may have overlooked that while, formally, a Holder/DOJ examination whether or not to prosecute Z pursuant to federal civil rights law (did he deliberately violate M's federally guaranteed constitutional rights?), the FBI conducted a comparatively thorough (but later suspended) investigation (it said it intensively interviewed more than 25 witnesses and carefully examined the forensic evidence) soon after Z's arrest and concluded last year that it could not find any evidence that Z's shooting of M was motivated by racial or other federally/constitutionally prohibited animus.
[ If I had more time, this would be shorter . . . and proofread ]