I have serious concerns about the upcoming trial in which George Zimmerman is accused in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin. First of all, a 17-year-old is dead. Having taught, counseled, and participated in lots of community work with teenagers, I know what thinkers, questioners, challengers, rebels, and creative energies pre-adults can be. But their thinking, questions, challenges, rebelliousness, and creativity should not get them shot dead in a civilized society.
One of my major concerns is that the trial will be televised. Even though TV paid me well for 33 years, I’m no fan of televised courtroom trials. Since O.J., we’ve seen some sensational televised trials that set a stage for a whole troupe of self-wrapped actors including judges, lawyers, witnesses, and courtroom commentators. How do thespians like Geraldo Rivera and Nancy Grace(less) get so intertwined in jury trials?
The recent Jodi Arias televised trial was a travesty of justice and gave TV soap operas a bad name. Arias’ conviction took more than five months to decide. The sentencing phase isn’t over yet. Arias confessed before the trial started that she killed Travis Alexander, allegedly stabbing him 29 times, slashing his throat, and shooting him in the face. So why was she allowed to luxuriate on the stand for 18 straight days? And her trial cost Arizona taxpayers upwards of $1.4 million dollars.
Let’s hope the judge in the upcoming Zimmerman trial will seek justice, but insist on courtroom efficiency. She should re-read what the Founding Fathers said about speedy trials in their Sixth “Mulligan.” (I call the Constitution’s Amendments “Mulligans,” since the framers were allowed do-overs to try to get things right.)
Here’s another issue: In a 1970 Florida case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that in some cases, it’s OK for a state to have just six jurors instead of 12. The high court ruling actually said—verbatim—that settling on the number 12 for the proper size of a jury size was simply a “historical accident.” Seriously! In a state where ballot-counting is called Advanced Math, I don’t think that six of one is as good as a dozen of the other in this Zimmerman trial.
Should a case as sensational and as historically significant as the Zimmerman trial be decided by six or by twelve jurors? I guess the case could be made that a panel of twelve jills and jacks in the box ratchets up a higher frequency of hung juries and longer deliberations. We don’t want that.
And with all the coverage of this racially charged case on TV and all the other media over the last year, I’m suspicious about what cave the six picks have been living in that allows them to swear under oath that they have no knowledge of this case. Even if they’ve been quickly switching off stories of this case on TV and radio or slamming newspapers shut—no knowledge?
And what about the Sixth Mulligan guaranteeing George Zimmerman an "impartial jury" or a "jury of his peers," as the Magna Carta put it. Back 222 years ago, the peer list for the Constitution's framers was short: male, white, landowner. In their founding fraternity, Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, Madison, John Hancock, and Patrick Henry were slave holders at one time or another. Peers were much easier to select. So the successors to the founders needed a couple more “Mulligans”—Nos. 15 and 19—to try to get it right. If truth were told, though, back in 1791, Zimmerman would never be on trial in Trayvon’s death in the first place.
The Constitution guarantees defendant Zimmerman’s rights to a fair trial, but what, if anything, does it guarantee the memory of Trayvon Martin?
Commentary by Julius K. Hunter
