1. Why the Zimmerman Prosecutors Should Be Disbarred
Jack Cashill, writing at the American Thinker, cites a Supreme Court case Brady vs Maryland, that shows prosecutors are charged with proving guilt honestly and fairly, not lying or withholding evidence in order to win a conviction at all costs:
The State's job is to make the case for the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Fifty years ago, in Brady v. Maryland, the U.S. Supreme Court established that a prosecutor's responsibility was "to seek justice fairly, not merely win convictions by any means." In the case at hand, this meant that the State of Florida had the responsibility to share promptly all exculpatory evidence with the defense. It did not.The fact that the Zimmerman prosecutors went all out to convict an obviously innocent man only further proves that Florida v. Zimmerman was sham trial that was staged for political reasons, not justice. The prosecutors have deliberately attempted to railroad George Zimmerman, and they should pay for that with their law licenses.
2. Zimmerman Case's Legal Absurdities Astound
Mark Steyn writes:
If, for the purposes of American show trials, a Hispanic who voted for a black president can be instantly transformed into a white racist, there's no reason why he can't be a child abuser, too. The defense was notified of this novel development, on which the prosecution (judging by the volume of precedents assembled) had been working for weeks or more likely months, at 7:30 that morning. If you know your Magna Carta, you'll be aware that "no official shall place a man on trial ... without producing credible witnesses to the truth of it." But the rights enjoyed by free men in the England of King John in 1215 are harder to come by in the State of Florida eight centuries later.Read the two articles at the links provided above.