MSNBC questions atypical police protocol in Trayvon Martin case

The widely publicized Trayvon Martin killing raised some serious questions about police protocol, the ‘stand your ground’ law in Florida, and the friction that racial and ethnic boundaries are causing in the state.

Originally, the night the event took place, the police chose not to arrest George Zimmerman for the killing of Trayvon Martin, despite the recommendation of the lead investigator, Chris Serino. The case was initially deemed a self-defense case because of the ‘stand your ground’ law that would allow Zimmerman to forcefully defend himself without the obligation to flee from the alleged attack.

In an interview with MSNBC following the news of the incident, legal commentator and former US Attorney Kendall Coffey discussed the case while examining data gathered by the news team.

The reaction from the authorities was atypical, especially considering that those who overruled the leading investigator were officials who were not at the scene of the crime. “…The lead investigator, the person that normally law enforcement would say is in the best position to assess whether or not there’s probable cause [for arrest, was] effectively overruled by people sitting back at the office,” said Kendall Coffey, adding that the scenario raised questions.

Though new information has unraveled since Feb. 26, the night of the incident, the case proceeds, unraveling new facts and triggering profound emotion and concern. 

'Stand your ground' controversy spikes in Trayvon Martin case

Hypothetical Situation:  A young man wanders around an area with which he is unfamiliar. It’s nighttime and he has somewhere to be but he’s not quite sure how to get there. His eyes meet with those of a stranger, wary of his presence. They exchange unfriendly words. Words give way to actions and soon the young man is dead. The older man killed him.

According to Florida’s ‘stand your ground’ law, someone who is being attacked or is facing an imminent threat may forcefully defend himself without the requirement to flee. Therefore, the older man, the one who’s still living in the above scenario, can invoke ‘stand your ground’ and pass the murder off as self-defense without facing any backlash. Many would consider this scenario an unfortunate encounter when an adolescent boy messed with the wrong man.

However, consider that this was perhaps not the older individual’s first run-in with the law. Would his claim of self-defense become less credible if he had a criminal history? What if this history included robbery, assault, or battery? Would he still be capable of cloaking himself in ‘stand your ground’ if he had one previous arrest? Two? Three?

Reporters at the Miami Herald uncovered the statistics behind who exactly was benefitting from ‘stand your ground.’

According to the Herald, “Nearly 60 percent of those who claimed self-defense had been arrested at least once before the day they killed someone… More than 30 of those defendants, about 1 in 3, had been accused of violent crimes, including assault, battery or robbery. Dozens had drug offenses on their records… Killers have invoked ‘stand your ground’ even after repeated run-ins with the law. Forty percent had three arrests or more. Dozens had at least four arrests.”

Legal experts like Kendall Coffey are skeptical of the controversial law. Of course, it is an inherently problematic law, because, as Coffey noted, “It would be impractical to try and apply the law differently between those who do and don’t have records. And frankly, it would be unfair.”

Obviously having a previous criminal record shouldn’t preclude someone from protecting himself when the situation warrants it. However, a guilty man should not be able to so easily invoke a law designed to protect the innocent, and run free.

“The legislators wrote this law envisioning honest assertions of self-defense, not an immunity being seized mostly by criminal defendants trying to lie their way out of a murder,” said Kendall Coffey.

Though the law would work well to protect an innocent person defending himself, it appears as though more guilty individuals have benefitted from its enactment. Legal experts like Kendall Coffey and a significant amount of Florida citizens would prefer that the law be curtailed. Time will tell whether ‘stand your ground’ has a future in Florida.  

Former South Florida U.S. Attorney joins McDermott Will & Emery

It has recently been announced that former U.S. Attorney Marcos Jimenez has joined McDermott Will & Emery to help build a white collar and business litigation team in both Miami and New York.

Jimenez has a wealth of deep trial experience, especially with health care clients, and figured prominently in a case brought against Alltel by the Florida State Attorney General.  He obtained a final judgement in Alltel's favor after an investigation that stretched over nine years. 

Kendall Coffey, another former U.S. Attorney from Miami, Fl  and partner with Coffey Burlington commented on the move.  

"They are a very lucky law firm to get him," Coffey said. "Mark is a superstar and has a huge impact wherever he goes."