The moment George
Zimmerman was acquitted the NAACP and the Reverend Al Sharpton immediately
called on U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder to bring civil rights charges
against him. The Justice Department has already conducted an exhaustive investigation
to determine whether Zimmerman killed Martin out of racial animus. It found no
evidence of that. That's one hard and fast requisite for a civil rights
prosecution. The other is that the state so bungled the prosecution of a defendant
that in effect it nullified the intent of the law, namely to insure that
justice was truly served. On the
surface, this doesn't appear to be the case with Zimmerman.
Still, the call for Holder
to strongly consider a federal prosecution is the right call. There are several
factors within federal law that federal prosecutors must look at to determine
whether there is a "compelling interest" in a second prosecution of a defendant
who's been acquitted in a state court. It must involve a substantial federal
interest, the state prosecution must not have vindicated that interest, the
government must believe that the defendant's conduct could constitute a federal
offense, and that there is still sufficient evidence against the defendant that
the government can obtain a conviction.
There are clear elements
of each of these hard federal prosecution requirements in the Zimmerman case. The
compelling interest is probably the easiest of the requisites to satisfy. The
defense and prosecution agreed that Martin did not commit a crime, was not even
suspected of a crime, and was on a public thoroughfare when he was killed. The right
to freedom of movement without the danger of undue harm is a fundamental right
that's enshrined in constitutional law and public policy. It's inviolate. The
courts have repeatedly upheld a citizen's right to freedom of access and
movement in public places.
Though there was no
apparent racial motive in Zimmerman's confronting Martin, his action clearly
violated Martin's right to exercise his freedom of movement. This directly impacts
on an individual's right to life and liberty. This civil right was violated the
moment Zimmerman presumed that a young black man walking on public sidewalk had
committed a crime. The safeguard of that right must be a fundamental concern of
federal prosecutors.
The Martin case also
strongly pointed to systemic issues of excessive force, the excessive force
being the slaying of Martin. This strikes to the heart of another basic right of
citizens, namely the right to life and liberty, and again the freedom from
undue harm. There was audio evidence that strongly hinted that it was Martin
who was screaming for help and therefore was under physical assault from
Zimmerman. Therefore it was his life, not Zimmerman's, that was in mortal
danger. This is sufficient cause for federal prosecutors to question whether the
jury ignored the fact that Martin was the victim, and Zimmerman was the
assailant. This is one of the basic ingredients in determining whether the jury
nullified a compelling prosecution fact.
The Martin case raised
deeply troubling questions about the power of the law to protect citizens from
their unimpeded right to life and safety. Federal prosecutors play a major role
in insuring that where there's the suspicion that an individual's rights might have
been violated solely because of their race and gender that the power of federal
law is brought to bear to insure that that right is protected.
Zimmerman was not a
police office and did not abuse his power in killing Martin under the color of
law. However, he was acting in a quasi-legal capacity as a one-time
neighborhood watchman who had close ties and collaboration with local law
enforcement. This in effect bestowed on him the presumption of authority to
take action to stop and question an individual he considered a crime suspect.
This was the rationale that federal prosecutors used in the Rodney King beating
case to bring civil rights charge against the four LAPD officers that beat
King. The linchpin was that they acted in an official capacity when they
violated King's rights.
The Justice Department
scrupulously tries to avoid a dual prosecution of a defendant acquitted in a
state court. It goes to great lengths to shield itself from the charge that it's
bowing to media or public pressure to prosecute. This is why the percentage of
civil rights prosecutions it authorizes is infinitesimally low. Yet in the Martin
slaying there are crucial federal interests in insuring the rights of individuals
to be free from undue harm because of their color, age, and being in a public area
merely because someone perceives they shouldn't be in and then acts on that
perception with no cause other than that belief or perception.
If the Justice Department
gives serious consideration to the civil rights violations in the Martin case,
it will again send the strong message that civil rights violations will always
be subject to full and public scrutiny by federal prosecutors. This is exactly
why Attorney General Holder has a more than compelling reason to consider a Zimmerman
civil rights prosecution.
Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. His
new ebook is America on Trial: The
Slaying of Trayvon Martin ( Amazon ).
He is an associate editor of New America Media. He is a weekly co-host of the
Al Sharpton Show on American Urban Radio Network. He is the host of the weekly Hutchinson
Report on KTYM 1460 AM Radio Los Angeles and KPFK-Radio and the Pacifica
Network.
Follow Earl Ofari Hutchinson on Twitter:
http://twitter.com/earlhutchinson