Partly Cloudy83° WeatherPartly Cloudy83° Weather

Nation needs to hear from Zimmerman jurors

George Zimmerman reacts after the verdict was announced on Saturday in Sanford. Having little new to add, cable news outlets made a feast of the supposed motivations and meanings behind the verdict.

Associated Press

George Zimmerman reacts after the verdict was announced on Saturday in Sanford. Having little new to add, cable news outlets made a feast of the supposed motivations and meanings behind the verdict.

They have asked to remain anonymous, declining to talk with the media. It's a move that makes all kinds of sense for them. Speaking out publicly now will focus the public's rage and disappointment on their lives in awful ways.

Still, I hope the jurors in the George Zimmerman trial eventually decide to speak with one or two quality journalists about their decision to acquit the former neighborhood watch captain of murder and manslaughter charges in the shooting death of unarmed black teen Trayvon Martin. (News outlets already are asking the judge to reconsider her decision to keep their names from the public.)

Because, as dangerous as it may be for them to speak up, the rest of the country sorely needs to hear how they reached the decision they made.

For proof of that, one need look only across the cable TV news landscape Saturday night after the verdict was announced. The actual decision was delivered lightning fast in a simple "not guilty" declaration. But that didn't stop cable news outlets from making a feast of the supposed motivations and meanings behind the verdict with the barest scraps of evidence.

On Fox News, the acquittal wasn't enough for anchor Geraldo Rivera, who spent much of the channel's coverage insisting that Zimmerman should never have been charged with murder in the death of Martin, who was walking lawfully through a Sanford subdivision when he caught the watch captain's attention. Rivera blamed politics and public hysteria for the decision to arrest and charge Zimmerman, who shot the teen as the two were fighting in February 2012.

Rivera insisted the jury rejected second-degree murder charges against Zimmerman "almost immediately," with no evidence. He also interviewed a jury consultant who assumed that, because a particular juror asked lots of questions during jury selection, she must have asked the vague question about manslaughter charges the jury floated during deliberations.

"To think that (Zimmerman) acted out of hate, out of ill will, out of a depraved mind to profile racially and inflict punishment on this 17-year-old … that is simply not the case," Rivera said.

At MSNBC, anchors second-guessed the prosecution, stopping just short of accusing the attorneys of throwing the case, as host Melissa Harris-Perry wondered about the odd atmosphere during State Attorney Angela Corey's news conference. Corey's oddly jubilant tone came under scrutiny, along with accusations prosecutors failed to adequately probe inconsistencies in Zimmerman's story.

But some of the harshest words may have come on CNN, where Zimmerman's brother, Robert Zimmerman Jr., spoke with anchor Piers Morgan, accusing Martin's family of "throwing the race card on the table" after the killing, suggesting that civil rights activists wouldn't have pressured authorities into prosecuting his brother if he had been black.

"There are many more unsolved homicides in Chicago than there are in Sanford, Florida," said Robert Zimmerman, who seemed to forget that Martin's killing was never an unsolved homicide — civil rights activists protested because Sanford police knew who killed the teen and didn't seem inclined to arrest him. The interview only cemented grumblings about Twitter posts the brother has made that seemed to be borderline racist.

The outpouring on cable TV news and social media — even Oprah Winfrey took flak for tweeting messages supportive of a show on her cable channel, seemingly oblivious to the Zimmerman verdict — was to be expected. Because so little of the actual trial centered on race issues, they have come roaring to the forefront in the post-verdict analysis.

During the trial, which became a wall-to-wall event for cable news channels scrambling for ratings points, each twist in the proceedings was dissected like a football game, complete with re-enactments on HLN and armchair quarterbacking everywhere. With no statements from the jury, expect that dynamic to only get worse, as talking heads squeeze every drop of drama from a trial covered like a real-life version of a Law & Order episode.

Talk show host Steve Harvey tweeted "a child is dead and the man that killed him is free," ending his message by asking "my country tis of thee?" Lena Dunham, creator and star of HBO's Girls, also tweeted shock over the verdict, noting "my heart is with (Martin's mother) Sybrina Fulton, Rachel Jeantel, everyone who loved Trayvon and has been sent message his life didn't matter." Conservative pundit Ann Coulter, often criticized for her racially inflammatory language, wrote simply "hallelujah."

Martin's family proved the most conciliatory of all on social media, with the teen's father Tracy Martin tweeting "god blessed me and Sybrina with Tray and even in his death I know my baby proud of the FIGHT we along with all of you put up for him. GOD BLESS."

But all the verdict really may prove, as I have been saying for some time, is that this crime was missing an important piece of evidence: No objective witness saw how the fight between Martin and Zimmerman started, which is a key component to judging the outcome.

Without someone besides Zimmerman saying definitively who was the aggressor — the watch captain says Martin attacked him — how do you get past reasonable doubt?

Other questions also need an answer: Did Florida's "stand your ground" law, which was included as part of the jury instruction, make a difference? Did the many prosecution witnesses who seemed to score points for the defense — including a medical examiner who said many times on the stand he couldn't remember details from the autopsy — make a difference?

Why did the jurors decline to clarify their request on information about the manslaughter charge?

Amid all the bloviating to come on what this case means — along with efforts by the NAACP to push for a federal civil rights prosecution and perhaps a civil suit from Martin's parents — these questions stand out. And they can be answered only by six people.

That's why I hope the jurors reconsider their stance and talk to America about how they reached their verdict.

Because, damaging as it may be for them to go public, it may be the only thing that can help heal the country.

Nation needs to hear from Zimmerman jurors 07/14/13 [Last modified: Monday, July 15, 2013 12:44am]

© 2014 Tampa Bay Times

    

Join the discussion: Click to view comments, add yours

Loading...