July 7, 2013

"Why Zimmerman’s Motion for Acquittal Should Have Been Granted..."

Andrew Branca explains in detail.

Less detailed is this ABC News piece that is linked in the prime spot at Drudge: "Analysis: George Zimmerman Probably Won't Be Convicted of Murder or Manslaughter -- Here's Why."


Meade said...

from Matthew Sablan:

Well, I'm confused how the Don Abrams of before is different from the Don Abrams of now. The ONLY new information to come out has been beneficial to Zimmerman. The key details (witness saw Zimmerman being beaten, Zimmerman had extensive injuries, Martin had plenty of time to go home if he wanted to) ALL were already public knowledge. The bigger question is why the old Don Abrams would believe the legal conclusion the new Don Abrams drew is surprising.

Meade said...

from Tank:

A very short, but accurate characterization by William Jacobson at
Legal Insurrection:

Reasonable people can differ on whether George Zimmerman committed a crime under the law. Reasonable people cannot differ on whether there is evidence of that crime beyond a reasonable doubt. That’s why prosecutorial discretion is so important, and that’s why this case is a travesty.

The original prosecutors were not so invested in the case. Only the false racial narrative put this case in the hands of those who want to win at all costs.

This is what makes the case so interesting to me. I’ve been following it
quite closely and, really, the weakness of the evidence is clear to anyone
with an open mind. This is the rare case where the motion should have
been granted. A bright, and brave, Judge would have done that.