Zimmerman, Martin, and John Adams

I went to Detroit for the weekend, gleefully unplugging from the world to enjoy baseball and the company of summer-scarce friends. Sadly, this isolation was short-lived. Moments after coming home I was asked, “did you hear about the Zimmerman trial??” Obviously I knew of the case; it had dominated headlines, the TV’s in the gym, and the radio on my commute for a solid week.

Strangely enough, the circumstances surrounding Trayvon Martin’s death and George Zimmerman’s acquittal reminded me of proceedings following the Boston Massacre in 1770. Both cases featured polarized, preconceived notions of innocence and guilt, emotionally charged political posturing, and unpopular acquittals.

For context, the eight British soldiers involved in the well-known “Massacre” fired at a mob of Bostonian protesters on March 5, 1770; five civilians were killed and six were injured. Public opinion rushed against the soldiers as propaganda swirled, branding them murderers and calling for their execution. Guilt was assumed, punishment demanded, yet the government of 1770 ensured the soldiers’ rights to due process.

The future president John Adams served on the soldiers’ defense; while no loyalist, he put aside personal prejudices to fairly apply the rule of law. Adams encouraged the jury to do likewise–to swallow emotions and judge the case on its own merits, to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt or drop charges.

Like these soldiers of times past, George Zimmerman also possessed due process rights. Many are understandably angered by the jury’s findings–the entire situation is a tragedy–but there may be alternative ways to reflect on the case.

Both Zimmerman and the soldiers drew public ire through acquittals, yet our system places the burden of proof upon the prosecution to curb abuses and uphold rights, not to expedite convictions and win popularity contests. If it were otherwise, guilt could be easily determined by the opinions of tyrants and mobs.

The Zimmerman jury’s actions can be explained in this light; the jurors examined evidence and reached a verdict based upon their prudential judgments within the legal framework. While this does not detract from the tragic circumstances of Trayvon Martin’s death, it does exhibit the intentional insulation of the judicial rulings from outside influence. While the results may be unpopular, this is the system by which we choose to govern ourselves. Imperfect and erring on the side of caution, perhaps–but it is our best means of curbing unjust convictions and preserving liberty through the courts.

When innocence itself is brought to the bar and condemned … the [defendant] will exclaim, “it is immaterial to me whether I behave well or ill, for virtue itself is no security.” And if such a sentiment as this should take place in the mind of the subject, there would be an end to all security whatsoever.

John Adams, 1770