ACLU to Holder: No Federal hate crime prosecution for Zimmerman

[hack89]

Dear Attorney General Holder,

We are writing to clearly state the ACLU’s 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]

1. I have to agree

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]

2. It's not up to the ACLU

but I think most people realize it's highly unlikely they will bring a federal charge.

[hack89]

3. The legal standard is just too high

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]

6. Didn't the Martin family lawyer say this wasn't about race?

I seem to remember something to that effect.

[BainsBane]

12. Yes, but he was trying to play it down for sake of PR

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]

14. I hardly followed the trial, just what was reported on the 11:00 news.

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]

15. It's not just the trial

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]

18. I should probably bone up on the circumstances of the killing

and the resulting trial and verdict. Knowledge is a good thing.

[BainsBane]

11. Well, yes. They have to prove Zimmerman killed Trayvon because of his race

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]

4. I have to agree with the ACLU

[tumtum]

5. I agree with the ACLU.

[rhett o rick]

7. I agree. nm

[Gregorian]

8. I kept wondering about this. But didn't know if it applied.

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]

9. A federal civil rights case is unlikely, but the ACLU likely is wrong about double jeopardy

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]

10. ACLU: Pro-Citizens United, Pro-Espionage, Pro-Zimmerman

Where do I send my check?

[Nye Bevan]

13. And they defended the right of the KKK to march.

Everyone loves the ACLU until they defend the constitutional rights of somebody who is unpopular.

[AllINeedIsCoffee]

16. They have done a lot of good work, but

I don't look to them when formulating an opinion on an issue.

[X_Digger]

17. Ain't that the truth. *sigh* n/t

[markiv]

23. the fact that they support the rights of unpopular groups proves

that they support evil

that canard that civil rights would first start with unpopular groups is just a cover story

[Enrique]

19. it's not pro-Zimmerman

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]

22. they defend people's constitutional rights. they are not-pro or anti-anything or any person

[Paladin]

20. Look at all the Gun Enthusiasts, siding with the ACLU.

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]

21. The ACLU doesn't support gun registration either.

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]

24. The existing Federal policy seems adequate and appropriate to me:

9-2.031 Dual and Successive Prosecution Policy ("Petite Policy&quot
... 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 ...