Transcripts For KRCB Charlie Rose 20130717 : vimarsana.com

KRCB Charlie Rose July 17, 2013

And i do criticize the prosecutors, because i thought they could have done a better job and had a stronger case an it didnt show up at all in this trial. Rose we continue with the conversation about the world of David Rockwell, who does many things, including designing theatre sets. What theatre introduced to me, and i think, in fact, it brings it toae i architecture projects, is an understanding of portability, an understanding of flexibility, the interest in crafting the moment. I think in theatre it is about these things that last two hours have deep, deep impact on us. Rose Charles Ogletree, noah feldman, dan abrams, and David Rockwell when we continue. Funding for charlie rose was provided by the following. Additional funding provided by these funders. And by bloomberg. A provider of multimedia news and Information Services worldwide. Captioning sponsored by Rose Communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. Rose George Zimmerman was acquitted saturday in the killing of Trayvon Martin, the verdict has prompted a nationwide debate on issues of race, law, and guns. Protesters from florida to california to new york have taken to the streets to voice their concern and anger. The federal government is under pressure to bring a criminal civil rights case against zimmerman. President obama has urged the nation to remain calm and respect the jurys decision. Joining me now to talk about this important case from cambridge, massachusetts, professor Charles Ogletree, he is a professor of law at harvard, and director of harvards institute for race and justice. From boston, noah feldman, he also is a harvard law professor and a columnist for bloomberg view, here in new york, dan abrams, he is the chief Legal Affairs anchor for nightline on abc, and reports for abc news and good morning america. Let me go first to dan abrams here at the table with me. You were not surprised and predicted this verdict. Yes. As a legal matter, this wasnt a cugh based on the fa the law with regard to self defense. Once all of the evidence was in, these jurors would have had to convict, they would have had to believe beyond a reasonable doubt that it wasnt self defense, and in the momentni at George Zimmerman fired that weapon, did he reasonably believe that great bodily harm or death could ensue . Just what was going on in his head . Not what actually happened so if those jurors had reasonable doubt about that question, then it is an acquittal and based on the fact presented in this case, i dont see how the jurors could have voted any other way. Rose Charles Ogletree what do you think of this decision by this jury . Well, i accept the decision. I think this jury thought through the evidence very carefully and reached a verdict which is only available and that is not guilty. I disagree with dan a little bit, i think one of the problems with the case is that the pink elephant of race was throughout this trial, and no one could talk about it, i think if you look at George Zimmermans comments about Trayvon Martin before the shooting, and his comments that, in a sense, had a racial tone to them, that to me was a sense that George Zimmerman was looking for a black man and wanted to take a black man out that night with that gun. That is not before the jury, the jury didnt decide that he did not kill him without self defense, and i agree with the verdict. Rose but do you believe what you just said that zimmerman was looking for a black man with a gun and wanted to do violence . I do. I do, because he said that he made these comments, and dan is aware of them, he made a number of comments when he talked to the police, very disparaging comments about Trayvon Martin, who he had never met, who he didnt know, all he knew is that he was a black male with a hoody coming toward him, and that was must have for him to say the comments that he said, so that was an issue that had nothing to do with what act ultimately happened in the case many believe, but i think it is an underlying issue that will have this issue simmering, particularly in the black community for many, many years to come. Rose noah feldman . There is a big mismatch here between the broad social meaning of this case about race and the possibility of profiling and the legal issue that was actually in front of the jury which was narrowing, as dan said about the question of whether there was self defense here and i think that is a problem with trials like this. You know, they mean a lot to a lot of people, they become a symbols like the rodney king became a marble and propound legal system but the legal system isnt well set up to manage those symbolic issues because it focuses on a very narrow particularities here so i think people who say this was the right verdict are responding to the details, people who say the big picture is problematic here, something is wrong here, this stems from problems we have regarding race in our country are also right. I agree with noah on that, i think that where ogletree and i differ is that the evidence that came in in this case he is referring to, and it was those words where he referred to look, in theory he was referring to other people getting away with these crimes, et cetera, in this is always happening, curse words i wont repeat that were used in connection with it. Unclear whether those were being directed at Trayvon Martin and they may have been and i also think he is right that if Trayvon Martin hadnt been a black man, that this probably never would have happened and as a result, will is a real questions a, questions to ask about that societily, but i dont think that what George Zimmerman did. Upon following him and doing what he is supposed to do, which is to call the authorities, call nonemergency line, tell them what he is witnessing, is a crime. It may be a moral crime, but it is not a criminal crime. He was told to go back to his car and he did not do that. And, in fact, he went following Trayvon Martin, he had a gun, and he used the gun, now, all i am saying is there a lot of people who are wondering why did this unarmed 17yearold black kid get killed . And thats because he was in the wrong place at the wrong time, his father did everything he could do, he was in a gated community, he was going to his fathers girlfriends house, he thought he was safe. But he wasnt safe. He was a black male, teenager walking through sanford, late at night, and that set off George Zimmerman thinking that maybe this guy is i agree with you are saying, the problem is on the facts, people have been misstating the facts in this case, what happened is George Zimmerman got out of his car, he was following Trayvon Martin, he admits he was following Trayvon Martin. Rose why was he following him . Well, look he says he noticed someone suspicious and thats a fair questions to ask is high was George Zimmerman following this guy in the first place . Fair enough. But he et cetera out of the car, he is on the phone with 911, they then say to him, are you following him . He says, yes. They say you dont heed to do that, he says, okay. What happened next is one of the key questions in the case. Zimmerman says he didnt follow him, the Prosecutor Says he did follow him and i think it is a reasonable conclusion for someone like professor ogletree or others to say they dont believe he was following him but with regard to the 911 case he wasnt told get back in your car, et cetera, he was told you dont need to do that after he was already out of his car. I think the reality here is that we can debate this forever, the reality is that what the jury did use reach the only verdict he could reach on the evidence that was presented. The prosecution, i think, did a poor job, and i am a defense lawyer, i have been defending cases for many, many years as a Public Defense and as a defense lawyer and i think they did not rove beyond a reasonable doubt that George Zimmerman was guilty of a crime. I will say that over and over again and i worry as well about, you know, what it means for the black community to understand how could a 17yearold unarmed kid be killed and the answer will not be resolved by the trial that took place this past two weeks. It is going to be answered with larger discussions, debates, we will talk about it august 24th in washington at the march on washington, i think we need to continue talking about it so black, white, male, female everybody can understand that this was a tragic situation, it shouldnt happen and we have to make sure it doesnt happen in the future. We should keep in mind just because something isnt against the law means the law is correct it is possible the law should be different, it may be that if you get out of your car with a gun and you are tracking somebody, and then subsequently you bet into a confrontation with them and you shoot them you say this self defense you shouldnt be able to raise a self defense claim under those circumstances, you know, the law is defined presently so zimmerman could raise that claim and so the jury had to believe the prosecution definitively proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he wasnt acting in self defense. But maybe if you are the earn with the gun and the person doing the following you shouldnt be able to avail yourself of the self defense defense. Rose you dont have to use you have to use self defense. Exactly and had he been committing a crime he wouldnt be able to use this crime, they didnt prove he was in the process of committing a crime but you could argue that he did something that shouldnt give rise to self defense. That is an important, high owe is the only state in the country where you actually have to prove self defense as an affirmative defense, meaning the defense has the responsibility to prove self defense as opposed to the prosecution having to disprove it and you could certainly make an argument that maybe the Ohio Standard is the better one, a lot of people rose and if the Ohio Standard had been effect in florida we may have had a different decision . It would have been a tougher legal case, the defense had to prove that the self defense was, in effect, valid by a preponderance of the evidence it would have been tougher, i dont think it would have made a difference but a tougher case. Rose Charles Ogletree in terms of the reaction to this verdict, among americans in general and especially in terms of african americans, do you think most of them believe what you just said, that the jury made the decision that it should have made on the basis of the evidence presented . Or i dont think so. I think, charlie, a lot of people peel that something went wrong with the system. And i think that may be lack of sophistication with a criminal trial and the burdens that go forward, and the fact that the defense did a good job of, in a sense, putting Trayvon Martin on trial, which he should not be on trial. He is the victim in this case. But in reality that is what happened. And i dont criticize the defense lawyers or doing what they did. They did their job, and i do criticize the prosecutors, because i thought they could have done a better job and had a stronger case and they didnt, it didnt show up at all on this trial, i watched it every single day as did dan and you and i think that it just tells us that we have some problems in the system, you cant change the law, you cant get rid of stand your ground it is all over the country now and it works for black victims and plaques who are accused of crimes. So i think we have to do some things that will address these issues and have a conversation about race. Rose okay. You make two very important points, one it has something to do with the way the system works and be the, b the whole issue with us since slavery the idea of race in america. You are saying we have to address both of those issues . Yes. And they both are connected in some respects because there are people who have a fear of black men, particularly black teenage men, and Trayvon Martin fits within that profile. On the other hand, i look at this data from the center for disease control, and the reality is that people at trayvons anal, 17 years old, black male the leading cause of death is homicide so something is wrong with our system that causes young people, particularly young black males to find themselves victims. Rose is it among each other, killing each other . Is that part what is that statistic . It is a big part of it, if you look in chicago in 2012, they had 500 murders, and a lot of those murders were black on black crime, one of the ones we saw most recently was a gaping member, alleged gang member being shot at and his since month old child was killed in that, those things shouldnt happen. The president has called for gun control, i think it is an uphill battle because most states believe in the right to bear arms and you are not going to change that, it is not a democratic or republican or red or blue state issue, it is a universal issue, people want guns, there are 300 Million People in the United States and 310 million guns in the United States, so we are going to have, we are not going to solve that just by gun control but that is one issue, but education, a sense of talking about tolerance and we have to do it at the academy and we have to do it with children, we have to do it in communities, our religious leaders have to do it and we need to have a conversation because this Trayvon Martin case is not going to get over today, tomorrow, next week or next year, we are going to be talking about it well into the rest of this smu century. Rose and we have to do it in the media as well. Noah feldman, the possibility of a hate crime prosecution here, give me an assessment of that. Well the first thing to understand is in 2009, Congress Passed the Matthew Sheppard and james bird, jr. Hate crimes act which made it a lot easy easy easier to bring a federal prosecution in a case like this one, in that law if the prosecution could prove that George Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin because of his race, that would be enough to create a federal crime. Bodily harm because of race is a federal crime, they dont have to rove any other element, so the law is there. Then the question is, in the real world, could you actually prove that is because i it wouldnt be enough as i read the law just to prove that zimmerman followed Trayvon Martin because of his race, which i think might be pretty straightforwardly easy to prove. You would have to actually prove he shot him because of his race, and presumably zimmermans Defense Attorneys would argue the same way they argue here, that the shooting took place as a matter of self defense and therefore not because of race and you would have to prove to a jury 15 beyond a reasonable doubt that this explanation was not the real explanation. And i think for that reason, actually getting a conviction here would be extremely difficult and i think it is an important thing to keep in mind in light of the pressure that is being brought by civil Rights Groups and by lots of individuals who want to see a federal charge here, you know, a federal charge is possible, but the odds of success are really very slim. I completely agree, i dont think there is a chance, i think they are going to i agree too. I think they will talk about it, they will evaluate it, so they will say and i dont think there is a chance they are going to bring charges, and i think that the part of the frustration that is exactly as professor ogletree is saying when you look at the macro picture of this case i have been looking at the microup to, this if you look at the macro and that is 17yearold kid goes to buy skittles and an iced tea at a 711 doing nothing wrong ends up dead, right . If you look at it from that perspective people are going to say are you kidding me you are not going to be able to get a conviction . This guy went to 711 to buy some candy and he comes home dead. So that is the disconnect, i think is between the people who look at the case like that and i understand it, i get it, and those who are like me who are getting down into the microof then what happened . What and the legal issues, et cetera. And that is where i think that the disconnect in our society is, and it is not either side is wrong, it is just a question of, we all agree there is a legal matter, there would be no conviction here, but as a societal matter there is a bigger question. Rose okay, let me go and come back to some of these questions but i want to go next to Charles Ogletree and ask about the civil case and the difference standards of evidence and responsibility. As we saw, for example in the oj simpson case. Well, it is very easy to talk about the distinction between the two, in a criminal case, it is guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and that is a very hard burden for the prosecution to meet in any case, and they didnt meet it in this case. In a civil case, it is preponderance of the evidence. It is a much lower standard, it is about 50 percent, if you are just over 50 percent you can prevail. And to his benefit, tray i have has defending in the civil case two great lawyers, ben crop and darrell parks, they are defending the family in the civil case. They can call rose you mean representing the family of representing the family, exactly, the victim. And they can call George Zimmerman

© 2025 Vimarsana