What the Prosecutors got wrong- an analysis of the George Zimmerman Trial

            Many people were shocked when the jury in the George Zimmerman trial came back with a not guilty verdict on all counts.  However, we had a different feeling after watching several days of testimony. After the State gave its closing argument, we saw an acquittal on the horizon.  Here are the top 3 mistakes we feel the prosecutors made that led to a not guilty for George Zimmerman:

1.     No clear theory of the case- We kept waiting for the prosecution to articulate a theory of the case but it never happened.  The State not only failed to articulate its own theory but on several occasions seemed to adopt the defense’s theories.  A key is example is when the State used a mannequin to act out the actual attack.  Instead of proposing an alternative scenario they adopted the defense theory that Zimmerman was on the bottom during the most heated moment in the Zimmerman-Martin conflict.  The defense presented their theories and ideas in a tangible way for the jury.  The State sometimes went along with the defense analysis and at other times just never stated or made apparent what their theories actually were and how they were different from Zimmerman’s assertions.  As a result, they never made a real impression on the jury and we suspect the jury entered the deliberations having little to no idea about what the State actually thought happened.

2.     Reasonable Doubt- To tie with the above issue, the State’s lack of a theory and proposing multiple scenarios without really committing to any of them led to reasonable doubt.  This was most apparent during the State’s closing argument.  We were struck by how much it sounded like a defense argument in the way it brought up multiple scenarios that “could have happened” and leaving the jury to decide.  Multiple scenarios without evidence to point to any one equals reasonable doubt.  We felt that State did an even better job than the defense in creating the feeling that there was a lot of doubt as to what happened in those last tragic minutes before the end of Trayvon Martin’s life.  If the State committed to a theory and hammered that home by showing how the facts of the case fit into the law, Zimmerman might have faced a very different fate.  Instead, the State created doubt and confusion as to what happened leading the jury to find that there was not proof beyond a reasonable doubt to convict Zimmerman. 

3.    Emotional Appeal/Gender Stereotyping- A lot of people made a fuss about an all woman jury and their ability to apply the law fairly.  But when the State made its closing argument it became apparent that they didn’t feel these women were looking for a legal analysis.  Instead, the State spent most of its time making an emotional appeal.  The prosecutor alternated between becoming angry to the point of yelling to becoming so emotional that he started crying.  What was missing in these theatrics was how the State’s theory, the facts, and the law worked together to result in a conviction.  Contrast this with the defense’s closing argument, which methodically detailed the facts in the case, the testimony, and presented the defense theory one last time before the jury began deliberations.  The defense spent its time weaving the key pieces together to show why the State did not prove its case.  We suspect that the State used gender stereotyping to decide that an emotional appeal would work better than actually using the law to make their argument.  As we now know that was a major error.  We are not saying that lawyers should disregard emotional aspects of their cases.  On the contrary, they should find an effective way to remind the jury that these are real people with real lives who faced real consequences as a result of the crime in question.  However, this needs to be balanced with a presentation of the law.  The State had a solid legal argument to make but for a reasons discussed here they missed their chance to effectively present that to the jury.

It’s important to note that jury trials are an unpredictable beast.  We predict that if this same case was presented to another jury picked at random in the exact same manner that a conviction on all counts would be completely possible.  But the issues we noted above would have given the State a better chance at proving their case and getting the conviction they so desperately wanted.