Will the Department of Justice Find Zimmerman Guilty?

AP Photo/Alex Menendez

Since the end of the George Zimmerman trial, many of those dismayed by the not guilty verdict have pushed for the Department of Justice to press federal civil-rights charges against Trayvon Martin’s killer. Given the strong possibility that race played a role both in Zimmerman's decision to follow the unarmed teenager and in the jury’s verdict, it seems plausible that federal intervention might be warranted. Indeed, soon after the verdict was read in mid-July, Attorney General Eric Holder launched an inquiry into whether civil-rights charges should be filed against Zimmerman. But unless the investigation uncovers evidence that was not publicly available at the time of the trial, it is almost certain that the federal government will decline to prosecute Zimmerman.

The first barrier to bringing civil-rights charges against Zimmerman is that he is not a state actor. Since Reconstruction, the Supreme Court has generally interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment as giving the federal government authority to prosecute state actors for civil-rights violations. Criminal law reflects this. For example, two of the policemen who beat Rodney King in 1991 were prosecuted successfully under the Civil Rights Act of 1870 (also known as the Ku Klux Klan Act or the Force Act) after being acquitted by a state jury. But the Fourteenth Amendment does not generally apply to private actors. 

The fact that Zimmerman was not affiliated with the police in Florida does not in itself mean that no state action is present. In the past, courts have found private actors complicit in civil-rights violations when they have collaborated with police or when government has refused to enforce the law. (This was a common occurrence during the Jim Crow era, when official state racism and private terror were deeply entangled.) In this case, however, there is clearly no state action present. Local authorities told Zimmerman that leaving his car to follow Martin was unnecessary, so there was no before-the-fact collaboration. He was questioned and had his weapon seized after the shooting, and of course was eventually prosecuted for second-degree murder. The delay between the night of the shooting and the decision to prosecute can be fairly criticized as unjust or unwise, but it plainly does not rise to the level of a civil-rights violation. (Indeed, since Zimmerman had a non-farcical self-defense claim under Florida law, there would almost certainly be no case under the Civil Rights Act of 1970—even had Florida not prosecuted Zimmerman at all.)

Any federal prosecution of Zimmerman for civil-rights violations, therefore, would presumably have to be under the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009. Unlike the Klan Act, the Shepard/Byrd Act does apply to private individuals. In addition to extending protections to people based on crimes committed against them because of their sexual orientation, Shepard/Byrd removed the condition that victims had to be exercising a federal right (like voting) to trigger civil-rights protection. Any violence inflicted on someone because of their race is potentially a federal crime under this statute. (Contrary to the views of some, hate-crime laws do not punish "thought crimes"; they punish actions motivated by animus against a particular group.) Since it seems implausible to many observers (including me) that Trayvon Martin would have been followed by Zimmerman if he had been doing the same things as a white teenager wearing Abercrombie & Fitch, on the surface it might seem as if prosecution under Shepard/Byrd should be possible.

According to former officials charged with civil-rights enforcement, however, convicting people of hate crimes is not easy. "Juries are very reluctant to find that animus motivated a violent crime," says Rachel A. Harmon, a professor at the University of Virginia Law School who worked as a prosecutor in the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice during the Clinton and second Bush administrations. "It's very hard to prove bias motivation beyond a reasonable doubt," concurs Samuel Bagenstos, who served as principal deputy assistant attorney general for Civil Rights under the Obama administration and now teaches at the University of Michigan Law School.

Two examples serve to illustrate the difficulty of securing convictions in hate-crimes prosecutions. In 2011, two Kentucky men who beat a gay man named Kevin Pennington nearly to death were acquitted of hate-crime charges despite testimony that the accused men used homophobic language such as "kill that faggot!" while beating Pennington. A 2000 case prosecuted by Harmon—prior to the enactment of Shepard/Byrd—had a similar outcome. Jeffrey Rowe was charged with a hate crime for blowing up a car belonging to an African-American couple, who had had his car towed because he lacked a permit to park in their housing complex. Despite testimony from multiple witnesses that Rowe had used racial slurs to refer to the victims, the jury convicted Rowe for arson but not for a hate crime.

Of course, prosecutors have to make independent judgments about whether a hate crime has been committed, and not all prosecutions with similarly damning evidence fail. But given the difficulty of convicting people of hate crimes even when there's substantial evidence, a successful prosecution of Zimmerman would be exceedingly hard. At the time being, the evidence available doesn't make a robust case given past precedent. "Most of the cases where hate-crimes charges are successful involve direct evidence of motivation," such as co-witness testimony, observes Bagenstos. In the Zimmerman case, "it would be very hard to prosecute as a hate crime based on what we know." Even proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman followed Martin because of his race would be enormously difficult. And even this would be insufficient—it would also have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the violence Zimmerman inflicted on Martin was motivated by racial bias.

None of this means that it is inappropriate for the Department of Justice to consider bringing civil-rights charges. A federal probe might reveal evidence that state investigators failed to uncover. But barring the appearance of new evidence, successful civil-rights charges seem an unlikely way for justice to prevail in this case.

Trayvon Martin should not be dead today. But this is probably not a wrong that can be corrected under federal civil-rights law. Given the passage of the Shepard/Byrd statute, gaps in federal law are probably not the issue. The key lesson in preventing future similar wrongs is to reform the law of self-defense at the state level.


Local authorities told Zimmerman that leaving his car to follow Martin was unnecessary, so there was no before-the-fact collaboration.

The prosecution agreed that Zimmerman was already out of his car when the non-emergency dispatcher told him over the phone that they did not need to follow Martin. Zimmerman has claimed that after he was told to stop following Martin, he went back to his car.

Since it seems implausible to many observers (including me) that Trayvon Martin would have been followed by Zimmerman if he had been doing the same things as a white teenager wearing Abercrombie and Fitch, on the surface it might seem as if prosecution under Shepard/Byrd should be possible.

Was is the evidence behind this statement? How does Scott Lemieux know this is true?

What about "the strong possibility that race played a role " in Martin's decision to attack Zimmerman? Was Zimmerman profiled as a white homosexual?

"Local authorities told Zimmerman that leaving his car to follow Martin was unnecessary"

Carefully worded but still misleading. The police dispatcher never told Zimmerman to STAY in his truck or RETURN to his truck, he simply advised Zimmerman that he didn't need to follow Trayvon. Zimmerman was on FOOT, not driving, when he was told this and he said OK.

Zimmerman was near the top of the T when he was told not to follow Trayvon, who'd run towards the bottom of the T. All the evidence shows the fight near the top of the T several minutes later, so there's no evidence Zimmerman ignored the dispatcher's suggestion (which had nothing to do with the truck whatsoever).

The false narrative about the truck serves the sole purpose of making it impossible to convince people that Zimmerman did, in fact, comply with the police suggestion.

It is frustrating to read articles like this which continue to propagate the false statement that Zimmerman was told not to leave his car. He had left his car before the dispatcher asked him whether he was following Martin and then said we don't need you to do that, to which Zimmerman replied OK. I understand the race-baiters and liberal left are having a hard time justifying their hate campaign against Zimmerman but making up "facts" is not going to help. Equally disgusting are the statements like those in the article that said Zimmerman "followed" Martin because he was black. Clearly Zimmerman reported to the police a suspicious person dawdling in the rain looking into houses. He did not report him as black until the dispatcher gave him a menu , white, Hispanic or black and he replied he "seems" to be black. Zimmerman also said Martin was acting strangely as though he was on drugs. Why doesn't the liberal media talk a little more about Martin's drug taking, his use of "tea" and skittles. Martin sent messages on his cell about the high inducing effects of this combination when mixed with cough medicine. Why don't the liberal media talk about Martin's propensity and history of violence and the homophobic and racist nature of his references to Zimmerman. Finally why don't the race baiters accept that there will be no prosecution of Zimmerman because such a prosecution will expose some of the facts about Martin that I have referred to above.

Did the Justice Department open a hate-crimes investigation on Roderick Scott, the black man who shot and killed an unarmed, 17-year-old white teen? To be clear, I wouldn't support such a stupid move but it's all that difficult to make a case for it. You could allege that Roderick Scott thought the justice system was too easy-going on white criminals, that he deciding to address the racial disparity by dispensing vigilante justice on an unarmed minor who'd not laid a hand on him. Why is that any less absurd than the allegations against Zimmerman?

There is absolutely no reason to believe race was a factor in this tragedy, except to the people dissecting it after the fact.

The 911 dispatcher is a) not a cop, b) is trained to encourage people to stay where they are so the first responders can locate them more easily, and c) is not on the scene and therefore cannot make a judgement as to whether someone should stay in the car, follow, or move somewhere else entirely. In short, a 911 dispatcher's advice has no legal standing. If it did, the dispatcher would be liable in a case where he or she advises someone to stay put and that person is injured or killed as a direct result of that advice.

As pilots sometimes have to tell air traffic controllers, "your seat isn't moving." In other words, if you aren't there, you can only advise--you can't order or compel.

I agree that Zimmerman should not have followed Martin, but this is a basic rule of concealed carry: if you have a firearm, any confrontation can become a deadly force situation (as this one did). Contrary to popular belief, most people who carry don't walk around with chips on their shoulders looking for an excuse to shoot someone. In fact, until they feel threatened they are usually quite practiced at being unobtrusive.

Despite that error in judgement on Zimmerman's part, he in no way abrogated his right to defend himself against an ambush and an assault. If he had been intent on killing Martin, he would have had his weapon drawn and shot Martin before Martin ever gained an advantage--he wouldn't wait until he was on the ground being beaten (however "superficially") to draw and shoot. It surpasses belief that Zimmerman planned this, as some have claimed, just as it surpasses belief that he staged an SUV roll-over so he could rescue the occupants.

This was a tragedy that left one man dead and another man's life in ruins. It astonishes me that people want to generate even more misery from it by persecuting [sic] George Zimmerman for civil rights violations, and that the government has been complicit in even considering this as a civil rights case when it so obviously is not. The irony is that the misery generated from this is only partially Zimmerman's--everyone who is out for blood is eating away their own souls at a steady rate.

GZ is a sick premeditative cold bloodied murderer and any one that thinks that he should not be charged in any way possible is a fool or bias. The DOJ should track this animal down and put him where those bigots or idiots in Florida failed to put him by " any means necessary! I am glad that YOUR family did not suffer this murder against them. You would not be so rational!

Here it is a unarmed child gets murderd by a grown man. This 17 year old kid is doing nothing wrong. Just coming from the store with juice and candy. This racist half white want to be cop kills him. And you think that this murder was justified. The only way that you can think this was justified is if you are a racist your self. You see as black people we have one thing to still look forward to. And thats call (judgement day). On that day ,,all you racist devil will have to answer for the crime you commited on people of color. And on that day you will get to see all of your ancestors while you all burn in hell, So enjoy the so call power you have Enjoy all the people of color lives that you ruin. (Your day is coming soon.)

You need to be logged in to comment.
(If there's one thing we know about comment trolls, it's that they're lazy)