JustOneMinute

He Must Be Guilty Of Something!

The National Review reluctantly rides to the defense of John Edwards, presenting arguments that were offered at the time of his indictment (.pdf).  Their gist:

The prosecution’s case is built upon a note from Mellon, who described herself as “furious” about the way in which Edwards was lampooned for his infamous $400 haircuts. “From now on,” she wrote, “all haircuts, etc., that are necessary and important for his campaign — please send the bills to me. . . . It is a way to help our friend without government restrictions.” And she did indeed write some $725,000 in checks for sundry expenses — all of which went to Hunter, not to the Edwards campaign.

Because none of the money went to the campaign, and none of the money went for campaign expenses — inasmuch as maintaining a mistress is not a campaign expense — it is difficult to see why this should be prosecuted as a campaign-finance violation. At most, the evidence would seem to justify charging Mellon with conspiring to subvert campaign-finance laws, though in the event those laws were not subverted, since her money did not go toward financing the Edwards campaign.

Well, yes, that point has been raised; here is the WaPo reporting on Edwards' indictment:

The indictment triggered immediate criticism from a range of campaign finance and legal experts, who said the government’s case is unprecedented and appears weak. They questioned whether it would survive the fierce defense being mounted by Edwards’s lawyers, who say his actions did not constitute a crime.

“It’s not illegal to be a pig,” said Brett Kappel, a Washington campaign finance expert who has worked for Republicans and Democrats. “Is what Edwards did slimy? Absolutely. Everyone will agree it was reprehensible. But it’s not a crime.”

Some good-government groups welcomed the Justice Department’s decision to charge Edwards in a six-count indictment that says he helped solicit what prosecutors called nearly $1 million in illegal contributions from political donors. Prosecutors said his motive was to hide his mistress, Rielle Hunter, and her pregnancy from the public and media.

If this is just a feel-good, CYA prosecution by Eric Holder and the DoJ Public Integrity rodeo clowns who brought down Alaska Senator Ted Stevens, well, let them be embarrassed.

The idea of wealthy donors supporting the lifestyle - but not the campaign! - of their favored candidate feels like it ought to be illegal. One is left wondering whether the benefactor is buying favors or simply access, and whether a bribery charge might be possible. Still, "feels illegal" is not the standard that we like to see applied. I am not nor do I ever intend to be an expert on campaign finance law but the DoJ needs to bring real cases, not politically expedient ones.

Trayvon Martin: New From Daily Beast

Aram Roston of The Daily Beast has George Zimmerman's account of Trayvon Martin's last words, as well as leaks from law enforcement officials familiar with the case.

As has been reported, Zimmerman told police officials that he lost sight of Martin and went around a townhouse to see where he was. Then he claimed Martin confronted him and punched him, knocking him down.

According to The Daily Beast’s source, Zimmerman told police that when he was on the ground, Martin straddled him, striking him, and then tried to smother him.

Zimmerman claimed that he yelled for help, and that various neighbors who peered out to see the fight from their backyards didn’t get involved. Zimmerman, the source said, told officers he was so paralyzed by fear that he initially forgot he had a gun, but he said that after Martin noticed his 9mm pistol, Zimmerman pulled it out of his belt holder and fired one round, a hollow-point—the round that killed Martin. (The autopsy report on Martin has not yet been released.)

According to the source, Zimmerman told police that Martin’s last words after the shooting were, “Okay, you got it.” He said the phrase twice, then turned and fell face-down on the ground.

(Martin’s father told reporters last month that police had told him his son’s last words were, “You got me.” Benjamin Crump, the family’s lawyer, said he doesn’t believe either account.)

That seems to broadly match the story the father told.

According to the source, Zimmerman told police he didn’t realize that Martin was seriously injured, and that he lunged to get on top of him after the teenager fell to the ground. Moments later, a police officer from Sanford arrived, placed him in handcuffs and took his gun.

OK, that is a new detail which may explain Ms. Cutcher, who saw Zimmerman above Martin after the gunshot.

Here is one for the voice experts:

Then there are the dramatic cries for help heard on the 911 call during the struggle. Martin’s mother said it was her son’s voice, and the special prosecutor in the case agrees. But Zimmerman’s supporters argue that the pleas came from him.

The source familiar with the case said that the Florida Department of Law Enforcement investigators had Zimmerman lie on his back in another location in an effort to recreate the position he said he had been in during the shooting. Then, the source said, investigators recorded Zimmerman as he shouted what had been heard on the 911 calls: cries such as, “Help me!”

Well, well - I have argued that unless the police waterboarded Zimmerman they were unlikely to get credible screaming from him, and the audio forensic experts say that matching speech to screams doesn't work.  Who knew that Zimmerman would volunteer to scream? Well, he took a long time to lawyer up.  And does the Miranda warning say "Anything you scream may be used against you"? I don't think so. That said, this opens the possibility that the investigators actually had something an audio expert could work with, and that the matching effort came out against Zimmerman. 

Interesting - voice evidence wasn't mentioned in the arrest affidavit but could explain the attitude of the prosecutor.  As to whether this hypothetical voice matching can survive a defense effort to reject it at trial, who knows?  My guess is the defense will look for experts to say that screams under true duress, such as in a fight, can't be mimicked voluntarily.  Is that true?  Beats me.

Zimmerman is the dumbest and most cooperative guilty man in America if he is making his story up. Or maybe he is experiencing PTSD and post-concussive memory loss.  Move to dismiss!

Here is a heck of a concession from the Martin family attorney:

Crump said it was not clear that Martin threw the first punch but, argued that even if he did, Zimmerman’s actions launched the entire sequence of events. “Trayvon Martin had every right to stand his ground,” Crump said. “We believe that Trayvon went to his grave not knowing who this strange man was that was approaching and confronting him.”

"Not clear"?  If they are entertaining the notion that Martin did throw the first punch, that is helpful for Zimmerman. Let's further note that "approaching and confronting" aren't "punching"; not to sound crazy or anything, but instead of punching Zimmerman a calm "Just headed back to my house to watch the ball game" might have been a better response. Promoting a message of calm and restraint might even be a better way to honor Trayvon's memory.

Cats And Dogs Dying Together

These are disasters of Biblical proportions - we are talking real Old Testament stuff here.

The Ace Gets Results

Alone among the Elite Media, Politico picks up on the non-diversity at Obama Campaign 2012 HQ.

Oh, Fine - We Let The Dogs Out!

Cry Barack and loose the dogs of war!

Huge, HUGE props to Jim Treacher, BTW.

SPEAKING OF DOGS OF WAR: Some day this will grow old. But this is not that day - this day, we laugh!

Drug Testing And Public Assistance In Florida

Why is it always Florida?  Ms. Alvarez of the NY Times tells us that their new law requiring Federal welfare recipients to pass a drug test is a bust but the publicaly available caseload numbers suggest she is wrong:

No Savings Are Found From Welfare Drug Tests

By LIZETTE ALVAREZ

MIAMI — Ushered in amid promises that it would save taxpayers money and deter drug users, a Florida law requiring drug tests for people who seek welfare benefits resulted in no direct savings, snared few drug users and had no effect on the number of applications, according to recently released state data.

“Many states are considering following Florida’s example, and the new data from the state shows they shouldn’t,” said Derek Newton, communications director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, which sued the state last year to stop the testing and recently obtained the documents. “Not only is it unconstitutional and an invasion of privacy, but it doesn’t save money, as was proposed.”

Thank heaven for the ACLU, which will fight for your right to party.  On the taxpayer's dime.

The Florida civil liberties group sued the state last year, arguing that the law constituted an “unreasonable search” by the government, a violation of the Fourth Amendment. In issuing a temporary injunction in October, Judge Mary S. Scriven of Federal District Court scolded lawmakers and said the law “appears likely to be deemed a constitutional infringement.”

From July through October in Florida — the four months when testing took place before Judge Scriven’s order — 2.6 percent of the state’s cash assistance applicants failed the drug test, or 108 of 4,086, according to the figures from the state obtained by the group. The most common reason was marijuana use. An additional 40 people canceled the tests without taking them.

Because the Florida law requires that applicants who pass the test be reimbursed for the cost, an average of $30, the cost to the state was $118,140. This is more than would have been paid out in benefits to the people who failed the test, Mr. Newton said.

As a result, the testing cost the government an extra $45,780, he said.

And the testing did not have the effect some predicted. An internal document about Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF, caseloads stated that the drug testing policy, at least from July through September, did not lead to fewer cases.

“We saw no dampening effect on the caseload,” the document said.

There must be another side to this, yes?

But supporters of the law said four months of numbers did little to discredit an effort they said was based on common sense. Drug users, no matter their numbers, should not be allowed to use taxpayer money, they said.

Is that really all the supporters said? Because a quick search with Google News turns up this story from the politically oriented Florida Current:

Welfare applications jump after injunction on drug testing

Gray Rohrer, 04/17/2012 - 04:30 PM

One month after a federal court judge in Miami issued a temporary injunction against a state law requiring welfare applicants to pass a drug test before receiving benefits, the number of applications and the amount paid out by the state rose significantly.

Judge Mary Scriven issued the injunction in late October, and by December, applications for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families reached 146,020, a 10.5 percent increase from November. The total amount paid out by the Department of Children and Families, the state agency that administers the program, increased 7.9 percent to $12.5 million – by far the largest month-to-month increase for at least a decade. Since then, the monthly TANF payout has held steady between $12.58 million and $12.62 million in the first three months of 2012.

These guys are trying to make a living in online publishing, so hit their link for more.  A state spokesperson says that most of the jump was for other reasons, but we do note this:

About 2,000 of the 13,914-application increase in December came from people who were eligible for benefits but refused to take the drug test, Follick said.

Still, according to DCF figures, the largest monthly swing in the past 10 years came in February 2005, when the TANF payouts decreased 4.7 percent over the previous month. Plus, the increase in December came in a month when the unemployment rate dropped from 10 percent to 9.9 percent.

So the monthly change in December was double the previous record, but had very little to do with the drug testing injunction.  And even with that caveat, there could be 2,000 people who were deterred from filing for benefits, which might be worth adding to the 108 who took the test and failed.

And one wonders whether we are even talking about the same state. Per the Times, there were 4,086 applicants over the four month period when testing was in effect. But The Current says that there were 146,020 applications in December, up by 13,914. 

OK, maybe the 146,020 is the sum of an ongoing group supplemented by 13,914 newcomers. In which case, the state went from about 1,000 new applicants per month to 13,914 when the injunction on drug testing went into effect.

There does seem to be a story here.  However, since the Times knows which side they are on they let the story write itself, with help from the ACLU.

I'm going to post what I have while I keep poking at this.  As usual, I welcome assistance and insight.

MORE: From the Florida Department of Children and Families website (DCF) I get this report about their TANF caseload:

Don't be deceived by the scary scaling - although the October and November bars are only about half the height of the adjacent bars, the left axis starts at 46,000, not 0.

So we see about a ten percent drop in the caseload from spring 2011 to Oct/Nov 2011, followed by a ten percent rebound after the injunction against drug testing.

The law was signed on June 1 and went into effect on July 1. This pro-testing group, the Foundation for Government Accountability, noted an immediate drop in approvals and caseload:

What is unclear is why the total number of cash assistance approvals in July, even if all drug-related denials were to have been approved, is about 10 percent lower than June 2011. 

Last year, July 2010 approvals were higher than in June 2010.  August 2010 was higher than both June and July 2010.  Thus, this does not seem to be a seasonal fluctuation as the experience during the 2010 summer months was much different than during the 2011 summer months.  It may be a result of otherwise qualified drug users not even applying given the recent drug test requirement.  This trend will be studied further in future reports.  Given the significant decline in August 2011 approvals, it appears to be a very significant trend and quite likely related to the drug testing requirement, as the economy did not change radically from June through August.

I will say that the seeming anomaly held up in September, October and November.

From the DCF website the "Caseload" report (set to TANF expenditures) confirms the uptick in expenditures to $12.5 million and their subsequent numbers.  But I am not finding a report on "applications"; the open/closed caseload report also shows a big uptick in December, but not the 13,914 descibed by The Current.

Still, their theme - something big changed after the injunction - is certainly shown in the publicly available data, even if the ACLU press release as filtered by the Times missed it.

ANOTHER TAKE ON THE 'FAIL' RATE: The Times tells us that only 108 applicants failed the drug test.  The Foundation for Government Accountability provides a different perspective:

For the 7,028 welfare cash assistance applicants approved in the first quarter of the drug testing requirement, another 1,629 were denied for a drug-related reason.  All but 32 of these denials were because the applicants did not get the required drug test at one of 350 drug testing sites across the state.  Thus, in the first quarter, 19 percent of otherwise eligible applicants were denied for a drug-related reason.  For September, these drug-related denials were an astounding 35 percent of all otherwise eligible applicants, as shown in Table 1 on page 3.

If I am grasping this, in the first three months there were 32 outright fails and 1,597 walk-aways.  What a normal walk-away rate might be, and how that compares to the rate with the drug-testing rule in place, is not addressed here.

They make another good point:

The impact of drug testing for welfare cash assistance is having a dramatic impact on approvals for cash assistance.  Approvals for September 2011 (for cash assistance applicants for eligible adults subject to the drug testing requirement) were 62 percent lower than September 2010 and 48 percent lower than in June 2011, the month before the drug testing requirement took effect.[1]

This reduction is exclusive to cash assistance.  Food Stamps and Medicaid approvals are consistent with levels seen throughout 2010 and to date in 2011, as shown in Chart 1.

That drop in TANF cash assistance while Food Stamps and Medicaid stay flat can be seen at their link or by anyone who has downloaded the 'caseloads' Excel file.

I am becoming convinced that the Times picked a side with this coverage. Imagine my surprise.

HOOK, LINE, SINKER: Ed Kilgore of the Washington Monthy believes everything he reads in the Times. Memeorandum rounds up the dupes.

ACLU FACTOIDS: From the ACLU:

There is no heightened level of drug use amongst TANF recipients. Indeed in 2011 just 2 percent of Florida drug tests came back positive for drugs during the law’s brief implementation. That is a rate four times lower than the estimated drug use of Floridians ages 12 and up, according to Justice Department estimates.

That ignores the people who took a pass on both the test and collecting benefits.

On the other hand, Florida is not testing for alcohol use (which is legal but can certainly be abused). I would say that society is drifting towards treating marijuana on  par with alcohol, and as the ACLU notes

Drug tests identify drug usage, not substance abuse problems, and most positive tests identify marijuana users, rather than individuals struggling with addiction.

I suspect that if most tests identify marijuana users it is because marijuana lingers in the system.  As to the many applicants who decline to take the drug test, I imagine data is sparse as to their drug(s) of choice.

One more:

Sanctions on TANF recipients will fall heavily on children. The majority, roughly 75%, of TANF beneficiaries are children from impoverished families.6  Removing or restricting assistance due to the behavior of a parent punishes the child for circumstances beyond his or her control. This proposal would also exacerbate existing stigma associated with receiving unemployment, TANF or other public benefits, and could potentially deter struggling individuals from applying for aid.

Drug testing "exacerbates the stigma"?  Why? Why couldn't an aid recipient wear with pride the notion that he/she cleaned up for the kids?

And if drug testing might deter strugging individuals, it might also motivate them to clean up their act.

All that said, at some point the kids are being held hostage by the parents and We the People need to have some thoughts about how to aproach that.

The ACLU is advocating, not informing. And the Times is not conducting a two-sided debate.

The WSJ On Stand Your Ground

The WSJ has a guest piece explaining Florida's Stand Your Ground law. Robert Leider, the author, is "a student at Yale Law School" with "a Ph.D. in philosophy from Georgetown University".

He starts well:

The shooting of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman has spurred national outrage over Florida's Stand Your Ground law. Unfortunately, the discussion of this law has been marred by misinformation. Jeffrey Toobin, CNN senior legal analyst, erroneously claimed that the law "allows a disproportionate response; if someone comes at you with a fist, you can reply with a gun."

Many have asserted that in Florida anyone who believes he is in danger can use deadly force, no matter how unreasonable his belief. These perceptions of the law are wrong. As compared with other states, Florida's Stand Your Ground law is neither extreme nor an outlier.

In Florida, as in most states, a person claiming self-defense must show that he (1) reasonably believed that such force was (2) necessary to protect himself against (3) the imminent and (4) unlawful use of force by another. The person claiming self-defense usually cannot be the initial aggressor. And to use deadly force in Florida, as Mr. Zimmerman did, a person must also reasonably believe that the aggressor threatened him with death, great bodily injury, or intended to commit a forcible felony (e.g., rape, robbery or kidnapping).

I look askance at his next bit:

In short, under Florida's Stand Your Ground law, Mr. Zimmerman now must show that an average person in his circumstances would have viewed the Skittle-armed Martin as a mortal threat.

What, a person 6'3" 150 pound football player can't break someone's face or open their skull on the sidewalk?  They can't choke out an unconscious man, even without a boost from the Skittles? That sets aside the claim made by Zimmerman's father that during the scuffle Zimmerman's gun becasme visible and Martin grabbed for it (A caveat - as a concealed carry permit holder Zimmerman ought to know self-defense law, and his statement may have been guided by that knowledge).

I question this:

Now that prosecutors have charged Mr. Zimmerman, they will face a similar challenge. Mr. Zimmerman had called 911, and the dispatcher instructed Mr. Zimmerman not to pursue Martin. Had Mr. Zimmerman complied, no one would have been hurt. Before Stand Your Ground, prosecutors could have relied on Mr. Zimmerman's opportunity to retreat in order to help rebut his claim of self-defense.

It is simply not clear what Zimmerman did after the dispatcher advised (not ordered or instructed; the advice carries no force of law) him not to pursue Martin.  Zimmerman, through his father, claims he was complying with the advice and heading back to his car when Martin approached him. In any case, by the time Zimmerman feared for his life or well-being he was on his back on the ground, so retreat was not an option.

After Stand Your Ground, prosecutors have a more difficult case. Now, they must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Zimmerman did not reasonably fear for his life. The police report contains some evidence to back Mr. Zimmerman's self-defense claim. Mr. Zimmerman reportedly sustained a broken nose, cuts to the back of his head, and had grass stains on the back of his shirt. These facts could provide reasonable doubt on the self-defense question if jurors thought that Martin may have had Mr. Zimmerman pinned to the ground and was beating him. This inquiry is much more fact-intensive than relying on Mr. Zimmerman's ability to leave the scene.

This next is a matter of opinion:

Nevertheless, even with Florida's Stand Your Ground law, Mr. Zimmerman will have difficulty asserting a successful self-defense claim. Stand Your Ground laws do not affect most basic requirements of pleading self-defense. Individuals using lethal force in self-defense must reasonably believe that they are in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury—in other words, an average person, given the facts as Mr. Zimmerman knew them, would have reached the same inferences about the danger Martin posed and the necessity of using deadly force to avoid it. Mr. Zimmerman's mere honest beliefs will not suffice.

That overlooks the alleged tussle for the gun and suggests an imperfect self-defense conviction for manslaughter.

Nor does the Stand Your Ground law permit individuals to use disproportionate force in self-defense. Mr. Zimmerman must demonstrate that he reasonably feared that Martin was going to kill him, cause great bodily injury (e.g., permanent disfigurement), or commit a forcible felony. A few cuts and a broken nose may not rise to this level. And Mr. Zimmerman will have to show that he was not the initial aggressor.

Hmm, earlier Mr. Leider had told us (my emphasis) that "The person claiming self-defense usually cannot be the initial aggressor".  Right the first time!  Even the initial aggressor can regain his self-defense rights if the other party escalates the conflict unreasonably:

776.041  Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

...

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

(2)(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or...

 

Black Jury Pools And Conviction Rates

From Duke Today comes news of a study which delivers one for the stats heads and two for the laugh track; from Duke Today:

Study: All-White Jury Pools Convict Black Defendants 16 Percent More Often Than Whites

Durham, NC - Juries formed from all-white jury pools in Florida convicted black defendants 16 percent more often than white defendants, a gap that was nearly eliminated when at least one member of the jury pool was black, according to a Duke University-led study.  

The researchers examined more than 700 non-capital felony criminal cases in Sarasota and Lake counties from 2000-2010 and looked at the effects of the age, race and gender of jury pools on conviction rates.  

The jury pool typically consisted of 27 members selected from eligible residents in the two counties. From this group, attorneys chose six seated jurors plus alternates.

"I think this is the first strong and convincing evidence that the racial composition of the jury pool actually has a major effect on trial outcomes," said senior author Patrick Bayer, chairman of Duke's Economics Department.

Did anyone pick up on the phrase "jury pool"?  I only see it in the headline and five more times in the text, so maybe it is understandable that Adam Serwer of Mother Jones wrote this for the laugh track:

Study: All-White Juries More Likely To Convict Black Defendants

Duke University released a study on Tuesday that examined the impact of race in jury polls in Florida, and there's good news and bad news. The bad news is that, according to the study, which looked at 700 cases between 2000 and 2010, all-white juries are significantly more likely to convict black defendants than white ones. The good news is that a single black juror can alter that dynamic.

And away he goes - the study proves what he already knew about racist white Southerners, so why read on? And Raw Story reads Adam Serwer so they follow him over a cliff with "Study finds white juries more likely to convict black defendants".  Another lefty meme is born!

But, if we can leave the Reality-Based Community and return to reality, (and here is the puzzle) the study said nothing like that.

The authors followed two Florida counties that are about 95% white. Six person juries were formed from prospective pools of twenty-seven people. If the twenty-seven were all white, blacks experienced a higher conviction rate. If the pool started with one or two blacks, the conviction rate fell for blacks regardless of the eventual composition of the six person jury.

Weird?  I am not sure how to explain that. If the eventual jury is all white, why did having a black in the pool affect the result? A guess - if the prosecutor maneuvers to drop a black juror it opens the door to whites that may be sympathetic to the defense and would otherwise have been struck. Well, Law and Order covers few Florida trials, so I am out of ammo.

Here is the abstract, which again hints at the importance of the phrase "jury pool":

This article examines the impact of jury racial composition on trial outcomes using a data set of felony trials in Florida between 2000 and 2010. We use a research design that exploits day-to-day variation in the composition of the jury pool to isolate quasi-random variation in the composition of the seated jury, finding evidence that (i) juries formed from all-white jury pools convict black defendants significantly (16 percentage points) more often than white defendants, and (ii) this gap in conviction rates is entirely eliminated when the jury pool includes at least one black member. The impact of jury race is much greater than what a simple correlation of the race of the seated jury and conviction rates would suggest. These findings imply that the application of justice is highly uneven and raise obvious concerns about the fairness of trials in jurisdictions with a small proportion of blacks in the jury pool.

I am going to hit the "Publish" button now and read on; I may have to amend my own summary, but perhaps some of the legal talent can help me out.

BORING: My guess is as good as theirs. The authors note that even when the final jury is all-white, blacks in the pool may have helped the defense, for  the reason I suggested above:

Adding black potential jurors to the pool can also affect trial outcomes even when these jurors are not ultimately seated on the jury. This indirect effect comes about through the jury selection process if attorneys on each side use their peremptory challenges to strike the potential jurors most likely to be hostile to their case. We would expect the defense attorney, for example, to systematically strike those jurors with the highest ex ante probabilities of conviction (i.e., those in the upper tail of the distribution) based on their observable attributes and answers to pretrial questioning. In this way, whenever attorneys use peremptory challenges to strike black members of the pool (presumably when they are in the tail of the distribution), they forgo the possibility of excluding another potential juror with a similar ex ante probability of convicting. This pulls the likelihood of conviction for the seated jurors toward that excluded person's position even though he or she does not wind up serving on the jury.

IT TAKES ALL KINDS: There are all sorts of whites and blacks. The authors note that blacks are as likely to eventually be seated as whites, which is uplifting:

...the distributions of ex ante likelihoods of conviction for white and black members of the jury pool may naturally overlap significantly when there is substantial within-race heterogeneity. Given this heterogeneity, the attorneys will effectively seat a significant number of black potential jurors whose ex ante likelihoods of conviction are not all that different than those of the seated white jurors.

NO, THE RESULT IS NOT DRIVEN BY THE FINAL JURY COMPOSITION: You had to know they would consider the possibility that blacks in the pool sometimes results in blacks on the jury, thereby driving their result.  Not happening:

That the presence of black members of the jury pool might have a substantial effect on trial outcomes even when no black jurors are actually seated for the trial is also consistent with the pattern of correlation of the composition of the seated jury with trial outcomes. Strikingly, ordinary least squares (OLS) estimates of the black–white conviction rate gap when there is at least one black member of the seated jury are almost identical to the estimated causal effect of having at least one black potential juror in the pool. That these point estimates are similar in magnitude despite the fact that a black juror is seated in only 40% of the cases in which there is a black member of the jury pool implies that jury race has a broader impact than what a naive OLS analysis of the effect of seated jury composition would suggest. That is, although the black–white conviction gap declines by an average of 16 percentage points in all trials in which there is at least one black member of the jury pool, a naive OLS analysis of the effect of the seated jury would instead appear to imply that such a decline occurred only in the smaller subset of cases in which a black juror was actually seated.

TO BE FAIR: The authors acknowledge an obvious baseline problem:

The ability of our analysis to draw firm conclusions about the fairness of trial outcomes, however, is fundamentally limited by the fact that the strength of the evidence in cases brought against white and black defendants is not observed directly in the data. As a result, it is impossible to draw firm conclusions about what relative conviction rates should be for black and white defendants. If, in fact, the strength of the evidence in cases involving black and white defendants is comparable, our results would imply that juries resulting from all-white jury pools require weaker standards of evidence to convict black versus white defendants, whereas juries resulting from jury pools with at least some black members apply comparable standards.

Bolstering their case - the jury pool composition varies day by day (they say) but these cases would normally be in the prosecutorial pipeline for days or weeks.  A *possible* confounder - same day plea bargains, where the defense and prosecution look at the pool at opening day of the trial and strikes a deal. My first blush is that a defense attorney with a black defendant and a strong case will proceed regardless of the jury pool; if the case is weak, an all-white pool may prompt an attempt at settlement.

That *suggests* that all-white pools see only strong defenses, whereas mixed pools may see a mix of strong and longshot defenses. However, since the conviction rate is higher with the all white pools, my same-day settlement theory is pointing in the wrong direction when viewed exclusively from the defense perspective. I hate it when that happens... So let's reverse that arrow!

The prosecutor can see the jury pool too. If it is all-white, the DA won't be offering a generous deal to a black defendant, so even a defendant with a weak case will press forward.

But if the prosecutor sees a black candidate or two in the jury pool, he/she might decide to offer a generous deal to a defendant with a seemingly weak case (black defendants with a strong case and a favorable pool don't expect a deal, they expect a win).

So now we can imagine that the conviction rate ought to be higher with an all-white pool because the DA rolls up the score against weak cases that would otherwise have gotten a deal against a more favorable pool. Well, it's a theory...

And the theory was tested against the data!  OK, it came up a loser, but still:

Columns (4)–(6) consider the robustness of the results to alternative ways of categorizing trial outcomes that are not simple verdicts of “guilty” or “not guilty” by the jury. For instance, column (4) redefines as guilty 133 cases in Lake County that are pled by the defendant at some point after a jury pool is chosen (but before the case actually goes to the jury). It is theoretically ambiguous whether such cases should be included in the analysis (categorized as guilty verdicts). On one hand, it makes sense to include them if these plea bargains are reached because the composition of the jury implies that a guilty verdict is very likely. On the other hand, if these plea bargains are reached for reasons unrelated to the jury composition (as they would be if reached prior to jury selection), including them biases the coefficients toward 0 as the outcome is, by construction, the same for all of these trials regardless of the jury composition.29 Column (5) recodes those 25 Sarasota cases that did not have guilty or not guilty jury verdicts associated with it (see note 14) as not guilty, and column (6) repeats the same exercise, coding these cases as guilty. In all cases, the results are very similar to the benchmark results reported in column (1) of Table V.

OK, I like the way they are thinking.

QUALITY OF DEFENSE: If (*IF*) the white defendants as a group are wealthier than the black defendants they may have better legal representation, which could lead to a lower conviction rate for whites. Doesn't explain these results, but it may be worth keeping in mind.

Also possibly worth keeping in mind - I am stuck on the notion that most cases don't go to trial, so any case that does go to trial is already a bit of an outlier. For example, I once sat on a jury where the defense had nothing, but it was the defendant's Third Strike so any plea meant a long sentence. Reading on, I see that gets a mention:

In fact, almost 90% of criminal defendants in U.S. District Courts plead guilty and 97% of all convictions are the result of plea rather than a conviction by a court or jury.36 As a result of these pretrial selection mechanisms, the set of cases that go to trial are systematically more likely to be those where the quality of the evidence is in considerable dispute among the parties. Thus, it might not be terribly surprising if potential jurors have fairly diffuse ex ante conviction rates for this especially select subset of cases.

As to what conclusions can be drawn, the authors are quite careful:

What our results imply regarding the fairness of jury trials for defendants of each race is much more difficult to say. As the discussion of Section V makes clear, when jurors have heterogeneous likelihoods of conviction, any random variation in the jury pool will affect the likelihood that the seated jury convicts the defendant. But such a model has nothing to say about which juror in the distribution is applying the most appropriate ex ante standard of evidence for defendants of each race. The problem is that without any direct measure of the objective strength of the evidence that is brought in cases with black versus white defendants, we have no way of discerning what relative conviction rates for black versus white defendants should be. If, in fact, the quality of the evidence brought in the cases of white and black defendants in our sample is comparable, our results would imply that juries formed from all-white jury pools require a weaker standard of evidence to convict black versus white defendants. This is a very serious potential implication of our analysis, but one that we cannot reach conclusively without knowing more about the quality of evidence presented in each case.

Since our friends on the left couldn't even read as far as the word "pool", I assume they won't reach that level of nuance. However, as an example of the point the authors are making, black jurors who assume all white cops are lying are not delivering justice any more evenhandedly than white jurors who assume all blacks are guilty of something.

The Pentagon Has No Monopoly On $600 Toilet Seats

By way of the mysterious Ms. Romanoff we learn that China has a major problem with corruption and profiteering in their military.

 

 

Out Of The Dark And Into The Light

Michelle Obama waxes euphoric about her hubby and the Weekly Standard goes all Biblical:

Michelle Obama made a remarkable claim when talking up her husband, President Barack Obama, at a campaign event earlier today in Nashville, Tennessee.

"I am so in," Michelle Obama said toward the end of her remarks. "I am going to be working so hard. We have an amazing story to tell. This president has brought us out of the dark and into the light."

The crowd of nearly 450 folks applauded as the first lady likened her husband to a Jesus-like figure.

In the book of Matthew, we read, "the people dwelling in darkness have seen a great light; and to them which sat in the region and shadow of death light is sprung up." (Matthew 4:16) The phrase is used to describe the words Jesus preached.

In Micah, light, however, is a reference to God's words. "Rejoice not over me, O my enemy; when I fall, I shall rise; when I sit in darkness, the LORD will be a light to me," it says in Micah 7:8. 

Either way, in religious terms, light is used to denote the true path, presented either by God or a savior. Or by Barack Obama.

[Or, Shorter Michelle: If God had a son he'd look like Barack.]

Oh, relax. Does anyone think Jeremiah Wright has a Bible handy?

Michelle is a mom who has seen the Wizard of Oz with her kids one too many times (I know the feeling!). A blind man could see or a deaf man hear that she was comparing Barack to Glinda, the Good Witch of the North, who got Dorothy and her crew to the Emerald City with a well-timed snowfall:

You're out of the woods, You're out of the dark, You're out of the night.

Step into the sun, Step into the light.

Keep straight ahead for the most glorious place

On the Face of the Earth or the sky.

Hold onto your breath, Hold onto your heart, Hold onto your hope.

March up to the gate and bid it open.

My goodness. Hold onto your hope and wait for Michelle to click the heels of her ruby slippers.

PLOT TWIST: Whaat? With a Man Bites Dog plot twist was Michelle trying to hint that Barack ate Toto?

Ted Nugent Wants To Kill Obama?

Rock blaster Ted Nugent (whose hyper-amplified section of the stage was referred to by his band as "The Killing Fields", if I recall my MTV Legends of Rock correctly) is prepping to off Obama should he win re-election.

No worries - the Secret Service is on it.   Presumably their party girls are already in contact with Nugent's party girls.

HOLD THE FRONT PAGE! Apparently Ted Nugent is contemplating his own untimely demise - as a gun owner, he seemed to have been riffing on the notion that Obama can take Nugent's guns from his cold dead hands.

Yet more evidence that the mere mention of guns freezes liberal brains.

Less Than Zero

Here is a poll baffler from Gallup:

Less Than Half of Americans Consider Tax Bill Too High

Solid majority believe what they pay is fair, although low-income Americans are less satisfied

PRINCETON, NJ -- As tax filing day looms, Americans fall into two closely matched camps: those who believe the amount they pay in federal income tax is too high (46%) and those who consider it "about right" (47%). Just 3% consider their taxes too low.

...

Low-Income Adults Find Taxes Most Onerous, Least Fair

Low-income adults appear to be the least satisfied with what they pay in taxes, as 50% say their taxes are too high; 44% say they are about right or too low. By contrast, Americans earning $75,000 or more are almost evenly divided about their tax bill, and middle-income earners tilt toward being satisfied, with 54% saying their taxes are either about right or too low.

Nowhere does Gallup mention the estimate that roughly 40% to 50% of households pay *no* Federal income tax (although they surely are subject to payroll taxes, state and local taxes, sales taxes, and property taxes).

One possible answer - what Gallup asked about was "income taxes" but what respondents heard may have been "taxes".

Or, low income households actually paying the Federal income tax may have good reason to feel unduly burdened. Hard to see how 50% of low earners could be paying income taxes if 50% of all households are not.

Or maybe Gallup included a screening question to determine whether the respondent actually paid Federal income taxes, and I am not seeing it in the methodology.

A head-scratcher.

Drunk And Stupid Is No Way To Go Through Regional Summits

Hillary Clinton takes to the dance floor to reassure the world that, Secret Service shenanigans or no, the US still knows how to shake it down. Nile Gardiner bashes, AllahP maintains perspective.

And for 'stupid' we turn to the Little O, who has studied a map and discovered a 58th state, or island, or something.

Well, I say 'stupid' but this was an impressive double-gaffe:

President Obama erred during a speech at the Summit of the Americas in Cartagena, Colombia, when attempting to call the disputed archipelago by its Spanish name.

Instead of saying Malvinas, however, Mr Obama referred to the islands as the Maldives, a group of 26 atolls off that lie off the South coast of India.

As the rest of us know, the Argentines call the disputed islands ther Malvinas; the Brits refer to them as the Falklands.

Trayvon Martin: Reuters Finds Bandages On Zimmerman, But Why Now?

Matt Drudge links to a Reuters story with the following "news":

Trayvon Martin's killer showed signs of injury: neighbors

(Reuters) - Neighbors of George Zimmerman say he had bandages on his nose and head the day after he shot dead Trayvon Martin, supporting statements by the neighborhood watch volunteer that he was beaten in a confrontation with the black Florida teenager.

...

Jorge Rodriguez, Zimmerman's next-door neighbor, told Reuters that when he saw Zimmerman the day after the incident, "he had two big, butterfly bandages on the back of his head, and another big bandage...on the bridge of his nose." He was talking to a police detective in his driveway.

Rodriguez's wife Audria also said she saw the bandages and a third neighbor, who spoke only on condition of anonymity, agreed with the Rodriguez couple's account. "I saw two bandages on the back of his head, and his nose was all swollen up," said the witness, who had watched from a nearby second-floor window.

The neighbors spoke to Reuters on Sunday and Monday, saying they felt they owed him their public support after he was charged with second-degree murder.

Well, we welcome their input.  On March 30, Fox Tampa Bay had only one witness:

TAMPA - One of George Zimmerman's neighbors is speaking out, saying looks can be deceiving.

...

The neighbor is talking for the first time about what he saw on George Zimmerman's face less than 24-hours after Zimmerman shot and killed Trayvon Martin.

"I saw George. He was banged up. His head had two big bandages, that weren't flat, had a bump on them," the neighbor, who did not want to be identified, said.

He described where the injuries were.

"I seen him have a big bandage on his nose and his nose swollen. On the side, where his eyes were at, it was swollen," he said.

At a guess, and from comparing the descriptions (only two bandages, swollen nose) Fox TB had the same anonymous witness that remained anonymous with Reuters.

It's interesting to see Reuters letting a bit of the air out of a story the media helped inflate. They also include this:

Witness accounts have supported Zimmerman's story that there was some kind of fight between him and Martin. Martin was returning with candy from a convenience store to his father's fiancee's home in a gated community when Zimmerman spotted him and called to police to say the teen appeared suspicious.

...

The neighbors said they spoke to Sanford police and the FBI in their investigations but did not recall speaking to the office of special prosecutor Angela Corey, who charged Zimmerman with second-degree murder.

I think Corey was familiar with the evidence when she wrote the arrest affidavit.

The Trayvon Martin Shooting - Powder-Puff Coverage From The Times

Brian Stelter, normally found at the NY Times Media Decoder Encoder blog, laces up the cotton candy gloves and delivers some puff-ball coverage of the impending coverage of the George Zimmerman case.

Here is some deep digging into past media missteps:

For one of the major networks, NBC, the tapes of Mr. Zimmerman’s calls to 911 were fodder for embarrassment. On two separate occasions, March 22 and 27, taped reports on the “Today” show took Mr. Zimmerman’s description of Mr. Martin’s race out of context, editing out the fact that the 911 dispatcher had asked him for the description.

One producer was fired after an NBC investigation. An NBC spokeswoman said a series of disciplinary actions had been taken against others, but she would not share specifics.

But hold on!  He links to his own story which broke the news that NBC had fired a producer.  But that was for one incident, on March 27.  Now he is mentioning two incidents.

Has NBC investigated, explained and apologized for the second incident?  Has Mr. Stelter even asked for their explanation?

And while he has them on the line, perhaps he could ask about NBC Miami, which used the derogatory Zimmerman 911 edit in three separate text stories at their website around March 19/20.  He could even ask them why those stores were re-edited on April 9 to eliminate the bogus edit after media critics pointed them out.  NBC had cited time considerations in their March 27 editing - in order to fit the Zimmerman clip into the three hour Good Morning America sprawl they were forced to make him sound like a racist.  Was there also a pixel shortage down in NBC Miami?

After the Media Encoder finishes with that, he might want to revisit the lead to his current story:

Trial in Martin Case, Filled With High Emotion, Would Draw a News Swarm

By Brian Stelter

The Orlando Sentinel’s Twitter account for the Trayvon Martin case is up and running. So, too, is its topics page, with links to all the newspaper’s articles about Mr. Martin and the man who shot and killed him, George Zimmerman, as well as video clips of its reporters talking about the case on television. A Facebook page will go online on Monday. And a Web video series might be next.

...[The Sentinel]  is competing with all manner of national media, which have seized on the story with a ferocity that has already drawn comparisons to the Casey Anthony trial and, years before it, that of O.J. Simpson.

By non-coincidence I had been at the Orlando Sentinel website this very morning.  Their featured story has been overtaken by events (Zimmerman's lawyer wants a new judge) but this morning they led with the news that Big Media, including the NY Times, wants to unseal the proceedings.  The OS has updated that factoid away, so let's cut to the McClatchy News Service:

MIAMI -- The Miami Herald and other media outlets are asking a judge to unseal court documents in the case of George Zimmerman, charged with the second-degree murder of Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Fla.

...

The Miami Herald is joined in the motion by organizations including The Tampa Bay Times, the New York Times, NBC and CNN.

So the Times Encoder is reporting on a impending media swarm without mentioning that the NY Times is suing to enable that media swarm.  Seriously? That is not part of the news that's fit to print?

Can We Hear Them Now?

From the Times:

Complex Attack by Taliban Sends Message to the West

Well, yes. And as with the Tet offensive in Vietnm, theTaliban doesn't need to win each (or any!) battle to win the war.

Yesterday Michael O'Hanlon was back with benchmarks for our progress in Afghanistan.  His conclusion:

Based on current trends — some of which are depicted in the chart accompanying this article — the most likely outcome in Afghanistan is a mixed one. Come 2014, when NATO withdraws, we expect that the Afghan government will be able to hold most cities and major roads. That is because of the often underappreciated improvement in its security forces, combined with the hits taken by the insurgency in recent years, as well as the general lack of appeal the Taliban movement holds for most urban Afghans. Yet the government will probably still be unable to control many of the nation’s rural areas, particularly in the East. On top of that, corruption among officials will perhaps further erode the government’s legitimacy; the economy will suffer as the stimulus provided by foreign troops declines; and the 2014 electoral process could easily divide Afghans more than unite them.

That said, 2014 is a long way off, and the situation could easily get better — or worse — than this extrapolation of current trends suggests.

FWIW, other than providing "leadership", Romney is not publicly on a different page from Obama.

And my commitment to admitting that we lack the commitment and probably the ability to achieve "victory" remains unwavering.

On His Presidency's Sexual Service

These Secret Service clowns have endangered the President and made the US a laughingstock at a regional conference.

And apparently the good times rolled beyond the Secret Service:

The probe widened yesterday to include five members of the US military who were allegedly involved in the same incident, officials said.

The service members, with the Southern Command, are still in Colombia “because of the expertise and the knowledge that these guys have,” a military spokesman told CBS News.

A statement released by the Southern Command said the service members “violated the curfew . . . and may have been involved in inappropriate conduct.”

There is a crying need for improved security in Kabul...

Some Asian Glaciers Expanding

Yet another story demonstrating that global warming has all sorts of unpredicted consequences:

Some glaciers on Asia's Karakoram mountains are defying the global trend and getting thicker, say researchers.

A French team used satellite data to show that glaciers in part of the Karakoram range, to the west of the Himalayan region, are putting on mass.

The reason is unclear, as glaciers in other parts of the Himalayas are losing mass - which also is the global trend.

They take a stab at an explanation:

Having done all these calculations, the team found that between 1999 and 2008 the mass of the glaciers in this 5,615 sq km (2,168 sq miles) region of the Karakoram increased marginally, although there were wide variations between individual glaciers.

Why this should be is not clear, though it is well known from studies in other parts of the world that climate change can cause extra precipitation into cold regions which, if they are cold enough, gets added to the existing mass of ice.

"We don't really know the reason," Ms Gardelle told BBC News.

"Right now we believe that it could be due to a very specific regional climate over Karakoram because there have been meteorological measurements showing increased winter precipitation; but that's just a guess at this stage."

OK, one one level these "heads, it's global warming; tails, it's global warming" explanations get tiresome.

On the other hand, there is that old chestnut that global warming will halt the Gulf Stream and plunge Europe into the icebox.

So yes, some glacier fields might very well be growing due to climate change and global warming.

What would be really impressive is if the whiz-bang modleing had predicted that result.  Still, it is a big, complicated world and these glaciers are in an obscure part of it.

The story has an early mention of the recent IPCC debacle:

The response of Himalayan glaciers to global warming has been a hot topic ever since the 2007 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which contained the erroneous claim that ice from most of the region could disappear by 2035.

Nostalgia buffs will recall our journey to the headwaters of the IPCC error in December 2009; the 'goofed up interview' theory was vindicated six weeks later.

The Federal Investigation Of Zimmerman - Sand In The Gears From Florida?

The CS Monitor had a piece explaining that the Federal investigation into whether George Zimmerman committed a hate crime against Trayvon Martin is on a separate track from the Florida legal process. Consequently, the murder charges (affidavit reax compiled here) don't affect the Federal investigation.

But the Florida effort has greatly altered the Federal investigation! The article omits the impact of this allegation from the state affidavit:

Zimmerman.. also said "these f*****g punks".

Ooops.  CNN has offered multiple guesses as to what Zimmerman said, so who knows? But at one time the left was atwitter over the possibility that Zimmerman had been recorded saying "f*****g coons", thereby creating a Federal hate crimes hook for the case.

There may be other hooks. And the Feds may yet roll out their own experts willing to defy CNN and the State of Florida and insist they hear a racial slur.  But however hard it may previously have been for the Feds to clear a probable cause or reasonable doubt threshold of racial animus, the State of Florida, with their sworn affidavit, has made it harder.

One might even wonder if the State of Florida deliberately introduced that barrier to the Feds. Hmm...

Lobbyists Parade Through Obama's White House; Times Blames Bush

I'm serious.  No, I'm not, but I'm accurate. The NY Times has a big, baseline free article in which they discover that money talks in Washington.  Their lead:

White House Opens Door to Big Donors, and Lobbyists Slip In

By MIKE McINTIRE and MICHAEL LUO

Last May, as a battle was heating up between Internet companies and Hollywood over how to stop online piracy, a top entertainment industry lobbyist landed a meeting at the White House with one of President Obama’s technology advisers.

The lobbyist did not get there by himself.

He was accompanied by Antoinette C. Bush, a well-connected Washington lawyer who has represented companies like Viacom, Sony and News Corporation for 30 years. A friend of the president and a cousin of his close aide Valerie B. Jarrett, Ms. Bush has been to the White House at least nine times during his term, taking lobbyists along on a few occasions, joining an invitation-only forum about intellectual property, and making social visits with influential friends.

Did I promise they blamed Bush, or what? Why didn't this story come out two weeks earlier?!?

The Times cross-referenced never-before available White House visitor logs with donor lists to conclude that there is an overlap between people who want to talk with the White House and people willing to write big checks.  Is it worse now than when Clinton turned the Lincoln bedroom into a Motel Six-figures?  Worse than under President Bush?  I have no idea and neither do they.

Oh, well - there are no salacious hints of impropriety to juice this up, unlike their 2008 coverage of John McCain. Take away the Bush joke and you are left with well, a joke. On the front page.

BUT DON'T MY SKEPTICISM SWAY YOU! If someone can find some real dirt in there, let us know. The Times is just doing this now to balance their inevitable, predictable October 'surprise' expose of Romney. Over the course of the year, their coverage will be balanced.

Putting The 'Joint' In Joint Summit

Latin American leaders are calling for an exit strategy in America's war on drugs:

At Latin America summit, Obama to face push for drug legalization

Latin American leaders at the Summit of the Americas, in their attempt to curb regional drug violence, are expected to call for legalizing marijuana and other drugs, a move Obama opposes.

Look, if a bunch of Mexicans have to deal with death and corruption so that Manhattan hipsters can light up on Saturday night, well, move on, right? Live and let live.

Do I have a point? Plenty of people smoke cigarettes and are very casual about the likely pain and suffering they will eventually inflict on themselves and their family.  Why are people likely to be more solicitous of Mexico and the problems our collective drug use creates for them? Recreational drug users might want to think about respecting our fellow world citizens if respecting our nation's drug laws seems ridiculous. But I am not holding my breath (or inhaling...)

NO WAY OUT: Obama stands firm for the status quo.

 

The Individual Mandate And Catastrophic Coverage

Randy Barnett looks at the dubious press coverage of catastrophic coverage. His intro:

One of the myths of the Affordable Care Act is that it designed to address the costs imposed on the health care system by uninsured healthy younger people who may incur unexpectedly high medical costs from, say, being hit by a bus, and who then shift these costs to those who have insurance.  As I have discussed previously, several commentators have suggested that Justice Kennedy could uphold the mandate on the limited theory that the mandate uniquely requires individuals to pay to cover their own “actuarial risk”—i.e., the chance that they will suffer an unexpected, catastrophic healthcare cost that they could not pay for out of pocket.

Among the flaws that I identified with this purportedly narrow defense of the mandate is that it is factually inaccurate:  Obamacare does not simply make people buy catastrophic coverage that would cover their own unaffordable risks at a price that reflects their actuarial risk;  instead, as several of the Justices recognized,  it makes them buy comprehensive policies for a wide range of services they don’t need in order to subsidize the law’s other costly requirements, at a price in excess of the actuarial risk that they pose to the system.  Rather than being a scheme to insure against the risk posed by younger persons, the Affordable Care Act creates a system of a government-mandated privately-administered redistribution of wealth from the young and healthy to older baby boomers.

Well, yes - it is a leap to insist that everyone is, in their lifetime, a participant in the market for medical care and therefore must buy coverage for mental health, substance abuse, contraceptive care, and all sorts of things people might address in other ways (e.g., not abusing substances).

The Zimmerman Arrest Affidavit - Hold The Cheers

Let me open with a quick survey of reaction to the Zimmerman arrest affidavit from around the blogosphere.

Alan Dershowitz: "not only thin, it’s irresponsible.”

Jeralyn Merritt: "Affidavit = FAIL.

Ken of Popehat: "The affidavit is argumentative, it's conclusory, and it lacks attribution."

David French of NRO was a fan!  Andrew McCarthy, also of NRO, brings him down gently ("it is agitprop").

Mark Levin thunders from the right.

"Bmaz" thunders from the left: "wholly deficient".  I am not familiar with 'Bmaz' but he is posting at Marcy Wheeler's site and if he/she has 80% of Ms. Wheeler's researching ability that is 120% more than enough to impress me.

I haven't run across any posts (other than the French kiss for Corey) gushing over the lack of substance and the segues to the passive voice in this affidavit.  But I welcome suggestions.

I have seen less coverage of this skepticism in the Elite Media. However, CBS News breaks media lockstep and reports on trouble in Paradise:

Strength of case against Zimmerman questioned

But... but... that sweet prosecutor arrested him!  And said he "profiled" Trayvon!  She said it!

Yes, she did.  Now, back to our unexpected interlude with reality at CBS:

(CBS News) Now that George Zimmerman is behind bars facing murder charges for shooting Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Fla. on Feb. 26, there are questions about just how strong a case prosecutors have against him.

Special prosecutor Angela Corey's affidavit outlines her case, saying, Zimmerman "profiled" Martin as a suspicious person, and became the aggressor when he "disregarded the police dispatcher" on this call.

But many criminal trial lawyers in Orlando see nothing in the special prosecutor's affidavit that would convict Zimmerman.

Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law allows even the original aggressor in a fight to use deadly force - if that person becomes reasonably afraid of being killed or seriously hurt. (We intend to explain that in a follow-up).

Trial lawyer Richard Hornsby has litigated 15 "Stand Your Ground" cases - none of them homicides - and won them all.

Hornsby told CBS News he thinks Corey's affidavit is more significant for what it leaves out than for what it includes.

"The moment George Zimmerman fired that shot is the key question in this entire case," Hornsby said. "Did he reasonably believe he had to fire that shot to defend himself? And the fact (Corey) completely left that out, begs the question, does she not have any evidence to refute his version of the events?"

Let's reprise that moment in the arrest affidavit:

"Zimmerman confronted Martin and a struggle ensued."

The switch to the passive voice indicates the prosecutor lacks the conviction or evidence to assert that Zimmerman started the fight.

A to the "profiled" language, my goodness - there is all sorts of profiling other than racial profiling.  On his 911 call Zimmerman claimed Martin was acting suspiciously and only mentioned his race when asked by the dispatcher. Let's snip from the NY Times:

Mr. Zimmerman’s father said that what largely aroused his son’s suspicion was how this person was walking close to the town houses, and not on the sidewalk or in the street. Perhaps someone up to no good — or, perhaps, someone disoriented in a maze of identical structures, ducking the rain and looking for the house he had left less than an hour before.

If the prosecutor wants to allege racial profiling, she should have the courage to do so.  Instead she chose a magic word sure to thrill the left but without offering the evidence to support it.

CBS is hardly alone in finding skepticism about this arrest affidavit. Other reaction from across the political spectrum:

MORE: Don't ask your mum - Mother Jones has gone silent on this subject, at this writing.

James Fallows at The Atlantic is hyperventilating over the excitement caused by DeeDee, the cell phone girlfriend:

No matter how the case turns out, her likely testimony -- "Trayvon told me he was running away"-- will be dynamite.

...Angela Corey likely has other evidence she will use to buttress the testimony of Martin's friend. But the case against Zimmerman right now looks to stand or fall on the strength of the allegation that Martin was running away from conflict with the neighborhood watch captain.

Wow - wait until Mr. Fallows catches his breath and gets a look at a map, or the timeline. If Trayvon was scared of the 5'9", 185 pound Zimmerman, fear did not lend him wings. He was twenty or thirty seconds from home at a committed run, yet several minutes later he was on site for a scuffle with Zimmerman.  How did that happen?

DOES THE INITIAL AGGRESSOR LOSE THE RIGHT TO A SELF-DEFENSE CLAIM? Yes, but no. The less cryptic explanation will come from Dave Kopel:

Finally, Florida law guaranteeing self-defense rights express excludes anyone who “Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself.” Fla. Stats. 776.041. As is typical in other states, the provoker can only regain self-defense rights if:

[776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:]

 

(2)(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

So let's imagine that Zimmerman 'initated' the struggle by placing his hand on Martin's arm in an attempt to restrain him. Maybe that could be charged as assault. Martin responds with a punch to Zimmerman's face. Martin could claim self-defense against Zimmerman's assault and people could argue whether Martin's escalation fell within the exceptions.

Now, suppose at this moment, with both men on their feet, Zimmerman draws his weapon and fires. That would clearly (to me, anyway) be an unlawful escalation. Grist for the comment mill!

But suppose that, as alleged by Zimmerman's father, Zimmerman collapses to the ground and Martin leaps onto his chest and commences striking his head against the ground.  Might Zimmerman now reasonably fear "death or great bodily harm"?

Suppose further that during the scuffle Zimmerman's gun becomes visible and Martin grabs for it.  This is also alleged by Zimmerman's father, and I caveat that with the notion that as a concealed carry permit holder Zimmerman ought to be familiar with self-defense law and may have let that knowledge guide his statements. That said, it is plausible that the gun became visible, so - is it now reasonable for Zimmerman to fear 'death or great bodily harm'?

The prosecutor was not willing to assert that Zimmerman started the actual struggle.  That is critical, since (per 776.012) Zimmerman is allowed to use lethal force to prevent a forcible felony, such as robbery or aggravated assault (776.08). It also suggests an alarming lack of witnesses or clarity as to just what happened.

IN WHICH I MAKE A SUGESTION THAT COULD LAND ME IN THE PSYCHIC DETECTIVES HALL OF FAME: Martin had all the time in the world to get home, take a lap around his townhouse, and head back up the commons area to check out the pipsqueak in the SUV that was offending his sense of gangsta-hood.

The Psychic Suggestion (which I am stealing from a commenter from a few weeks back, but I have forgotten who so it is no longer plagiarism...): Martin had taken a stroll before the NBA All Star game to get his head right for the show; a weedy smell in the house just would not do, seeing as how he had been suspended from school for using marijuana.  After seeing Zimmerman he hoofed it back to his townhouse area, stashed his stash, and went back to see what was what.

IF the police conduct a diligent search of the area around the townhouse Martin was visiting (a hundred yards or so from the homicide scene) and find a baggy with drugs, Martin's fingerprints, and a 7-Eleven receipt dated Feb 26, 2012 for Skittles and iced tea, well - yes, I am ready for my close-up.

Such a find would prove nothing about how the "struggle ensued", to borrow the classic formulation of the prosecutor, but it would certainly speak to Martin's fear and state of mind. Of course, it wouldn't say anything the prosecutor wants said, so I would be surprised if they looked.

Trayvon Martin: The Media Myths

As a bit of cocktail party prep I wanted to get suggestions identifying the most pervasive and misleading media myths swirling about the Trayvon Martin shooting and the current George Zimmerman case.

So, to start. The NY Times and others have inveighed against Florida's Stand Your Ground law. SYG does eliminate a 'duty to retreat' but that is not in play here because Zimmerman was reportedly on his back getting pummelled.

The only consequence of SYG is that it entitles Zimmerman to a pre-trial hearing evaluating his self-defense claim; the case could be ended right there. If not, Zimmerman can raise the same claims in a full trial.

A second myth is that Zimmerman ignored the instruction of the 911 dispatcher not to follow Martin. That may be true, but it can't be proved from the 911 tape. The NY Times eventually got this right even though their editors did not. [To be fair, the prosecutor makes the same claim in the very unimpressive arrest affidavit, with no supporting evidence.]

As a third myth, the general notion seems to be that Martin was innocently headed for home. That was presumably true when he first caught Zimmerman's eye, but he had plenty of time to get home, a clear path ahead of him, and Zimmerman behind him. It is highly probable that Martin doubled back. Why?

That is a start. Sorry for the no-links; technology is against me now.

Saturday Morning Open Thread

Away we go.

No Wager Left Behind

I happened across this smackdown between Greg Mankiw and Paul Krugman dating back to March 2009.  Prof. Mankiw challenged Prof. Krugman to a bet on CEA growth forecasts through the end of 2013.

Team Obama says that real GDP in 2013 will be 15.6 percent above real GDP in 2008. (That number comes from compounding their predicted growth rates for these five years.) So, Paul, are you willing to wager that the economy will meet or exceed this benchmark? I am not much of a gambler, but that is a bet I would be happy to take the other side of (even as I hope to lose, for the sake of the economy).

My question - how have the numbers come in so far, who is winning (at the current pace) and what GDP growth would we need to see to flip the result? It's all hypothetical since Prof. Krugman never stepped up.

Time does not permit just now, but if someone wants to poke at this we can surely vex someone with the result.

BACK ON THE CHAINED GANG: We are trying to keep it real in the comments.  GDP in current dollars has been:

2008 14,291.5
2009 13,939.0
2010 14,526.5
2011 15,094.0

Total growth so far: 5.6% (1.8% per annum)

Growth needed over last 8 quarters: 4.6% per annum; a Krugman victory might be in sight, if the bet wasn't based on real GDP.

However, measured in chained 2005 dollars we see this from the BEA:

2008 13,161.9
2009 12,703.1
2010 13,088.0
2011 13,315.1

Total growth so far: 1.2% (0.4% per annum)

Real growth needed over last 8 quarters: 6.9% per annum

Obviously, the first quarter of 2012 is in the bag, and it won't be 6.9%.

Mankiw is on a glide path to a "real" victory, which is a bummer for all of us.  Especially since Krugman is quicker to toss around words like "evil" and "obtuseness" than to actually put up and shut up.

They're Safe

The Daily Caller reports on another DOA story involving sexual harrassment (possily same sex) by Democratic officials in North Carolina.

I will snip this:

“Rest assured there is a statewide gathering (I am told) that are upset over this and want people held accountable,” Jones continued. “In all honesty, I am being told by several reliable sources that the Associated Press is itching to get this out. Thankfully, some are trying to stop it. Do we want the Republicans to get this information? They are also asking questions.”

Jones added that he expects that the “Democratic Party, our Candidates, and our credibility are doomed in this election,” if the alleged sexual harassment story is made public.

If all they are worried about is the AP, they have nothing to worry about. And if this really is a gay sexual harassment scenario, forget it - that is so off-tune with the Elite Media songbook that it will never get play.

Remember John Edwards!  Which is to say, forget John Edwards...

Stand Your Ground, Ongoing

Jeralyn Merritt excerpts and explains a somewhat comparable Florida homicide to illustrate the legal framweork for Stand Your Ground.  Ann Althouse summarizes it.  Let me cut to her bottom line:

That is, there is a pretrial motion to be made, with a judge making the decision about the evidence and a preponderance burden of proof on the defendant. The defendant can win at that point or be sent on to trial, where the prosecution will have the burden, even the burden to disprove self-defense, and the standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt, much higher than what the defendant would have had to prove to avoid the trial.

So, to put it somewhat crudely — and please correct me if I'm wrong — assume, hypothetically, that any factfinder will decide there's only, at most, an equal chance that it was self-defense, but there's some reasonable likelihood. The judge as factfinder at the immunity motion phase must deny the motion, but the jury as factfinder after the trial phase must acquit.

One might have argued that an ethical prosecutor would weigh her likelihood of success at trial before commencing this process, not her likelihood of success at the hearing. The affidavit in front of us is not inspiring confidence.

YEAH, YEAH: If these links to respected lefties you might see on television get repetitious, help me find more. And we always have a soft spot for respected righties.

FOR EXAMPLE: John Lott links to the Sanford Police initial report and wonders where he can find the probable casue in the affidavit.

With Friends Like This...

Team Obama tries to spin the Hillary Rosen "Never worked a day in her life" debacle:

Obama aides say Rosen shows president will take on friends

Well, it also shows his "friends" are wackos that he will take on if enough people howl.

Future Governor/President Rushed To Hospital

Yes, I have long been a Cory Booker fan - Mr. Booker is New Jersey's answer to Deval Patrick and Barack Obama, but he chose to actually try to work his magic on the mean streets of Newark rather than ride the political winds to the governorship and beyond.

So check this out:

NEWARK — Newark Mayor Cory Booker was taken to a hospital tonight for treatment of smoke inhalation he suffered trying to rescue his next-door neighbors from their burning house.

"I just grabbed her and whipped her out of the bed," Booker said in recounting the fire. Booker told The Star-Ledger he also suffered second-degree burns on his hand.

Not to suggest that Obama would have stayed on the sidewalk organizing the community and decrying cutbacks in vital services such as firefighting, but...

Five people were taken to the hospital for treatment: the mayor, a woman from the house and three members of his security detail. The woman was listed in stable condition at Saint Barnabas Medical Center in Livingston with burns to her back and neck.

Newark Fire Director Fateen Ziyad said after the mayor arrived home he saw flames and smoke from the second floor of the building next to his home, and no residents outside,

Booker rushed in and his security detail followed him, Ziyad said.

Those security guys know what to tell the press, but seriously? Well, maybe:

After being released from the hospital, Booker recounted his experience at the fire and said he thought he might have to jump out of a window because of the heavy flames.

"We got everybody out of the house, but their daughter’s screaming, ‘I’m upstairs!’ " he told The Star-Ledger.

One of his security officers, Detective Alex Rodriguez, tried to stop him from going back in.

Rodriguez had been posted at Booker’s house in the mayor’s absence. The other two detectives, Duran Santos and Al-Tariq Whitley, were accompanying Booker from the television interview.

"Now we actually get into a fight because his job is to protect me," Booker said of Rodriguez.

Booker said when he reached the second floor, he was engulfed in flames and smoke.

"I suddenly had the realization that I can’t find this woman." Booker said. "I look behind me and see the flames and I think "I’m not going to get out of here. Suddenly I was at peace with the fact that I was going to jump out the window."

Then he heard her cries in a back bedroom.

"I just grabbed her and whipped her out of the bed," Booker said. The two made their way downstairs, where they both collapsed, Booker said.

Rodriguez, who had helped others out of the house said when he saw the mayor go in, he thought his career in protection was over.

"Once he went in, I said, 'Oh my goodness, this is it.' " Rodriguez, 39, said.

Before Booker arrived, Rodriguez had alerted two women who lived on the first floor of a fire and then rushed to the second floor, said Ziyad. There, an elderly man was inside trying to put out the fire, which had started in the kitchen.

I think Rodriguez will be OK.

AN ALARMING THOUGHT: The Secret Service better be on alert and keep Barack and his eager campaign people away from matches.

Zimmerman Case - A Quick Review

For the duration of this case I expect the Orlando Sentinel and the Miami Herald will be critical.

The Sanord PD initial police report had been at the City of Sanford website; the prosecutor asked them to take it down but it lives in the cloud.  Ooops. This report is often cited as evidence of Zimmerman's initial injuries. It also mentions that yes, the police did take his gun.

As a resource, this old CNN artlcle reviewed some of the key witnesses in the Zimmerman case.

This old post noted that CNN mysteriously overlooked "John", who did not see how the fight started but claimed to have seen Zimmerman on the ground getting beaten and screaming for help; he spoke to Fox Orlando the day after the shooting. "John" is very probably the "Holy Shit, the guy's dead out here... Oh, my God" 911 caller available at Adam Wainwright's Mother Jones summary.

CNN also overlooked the 13 year old dogwalker who saw part of the scuffle (but not the start).  He reportedly told police he saw Zimmerman (red sweater guy) on bottom, then backpedaled to not being sure what he saw. A theorist at Team JOM suggested that the 13 year old may have provided background screaming on the 911 tape in which we hear the gunshot. It's an ingenious sugestion the defense might make and which the prosecution might struggle to overcome.

Here is some original CNN coverage of the cell phone girlfriend who was so important in the arrest affidavit. My skepticism of the circumstances of her discovery is here down at "AND ONE MORE THING".

Fox News interviewed George Zimmerman's father; we don't know what Zimmerman told the police, but this is what his dad told the public. [CNN with father, brother]. Do keep in mind - Zimmerman was a concealed carry permit holder who should have had prior exposure to some self-defense law; that knowledge may have guided his statements to the police (as well as his actions, perhaps).

Mr. Martin told the WaPo the version of events that Sanford Police described to him. The current arrest affidavit is here.

This post used Google Maps, the 911 transcripts and other resources to attempt to recreate the crime scene.  The NY Times eventually did something glossier, and others preceded me; The Wagist had some of the phone calls timed to the second, which is critical.  The basic framework is surprisingly similar. A general theme - Zimmerman was behind Martin, who had several clear paths back to his home and the NBA game. That strongly suggests that Martin paused or turned back to interact with Zimmerman (a not so scary 185 pounder, per his booking sheet; up from 170 in the Times but down from 250.)

Voice experts were brought in by the Orlando Sentinel. Jeralyn Merritt noted legal problems (Florida uses a Frye standard for state trials); I noted technical problems by the simple expedient of citing the webites of audio experts, including those picked by the Sentinel. I also flagged financial self-interest on the part of one of the experts. CNN and the Daily Caller also wondered about how credible and admissible the attempt to match screams to speech might be.

ABC ran video that, upon enhancement, showed injuries toZimmerman; a neighbor reported bandages and swelling to Fox Tampa Bay.

One last idea I have not seen widely discussed - Zimmerman claims to have experienced head trauma the night of the shooting and now seems to be experiencing PTSD.  Might the defense move to strike all his statements to the police on the grounds that he was fogbound?  Time will tell. ['cboldt' notes that maybe the prosecution moves to strike.  Very creative. Does that force Zimmerman to the stand?]

That's a start.  I look forward to seeing suggestions for extending the list.

This review short-shrifts the media shenanigans on this case but that will surely be a part of the coverage here.

EMPOWERMENT: The oldy but goody Google trick for site-specific searches is demonstrated at the link.

ZIMMERMAN'S INJURIES: Zimmerman's injuries were described in the police report ("bleeding from the nose and back of the head"); ABC News eventually ran enhanced video showing a head wound.

Zimmerman Arrest Affidavit Described

[Alan Dershowitz on the affidavit: "This is so thin that it won’t make it past a judge on a second degree murder charge”; "irresponsible"; "an elected public official who made a campaign speech last night for reelection".]

[Jeralyn Merritt: Affidavit = FAIL.  "That a judge signed off on this... is perplexing, to say the least".]

The Orlando Sentinel described the arrest affidavit for George Zimmerman [available here]; we note a lack of self-confidence from the prosecution, which switches to the passive voice at a crucial moment in the action:

In the two-page document, prosecutors offer little new information about the shooting.

However, they said in the affidavit that "Zimmerman confronted Martin," an apparent contradiction of Zimmerman's version of the events that led to the shooting.

The document says Trayvon's mother identified the screams for help heard in a 911 call as those of her son. It also reveals that investigators interviewed a "friend" of Trayvon's who was talking to him in the leadup to the shooting.

Based on the description, it appears the friend was the girl described by Martin family attorneys as his girlfriend.

"During this time, Martin was on the phone with a friend and described to her what was happening," the affidavit said. "The witness advised that Martin was scared because he was being followed through the complex by an unknown male and didn't know why."

Martin tried to run home, the affidavit says, but was followed by Zimmerman. "Zimmerman got out of his vehicle and followed Martin."

The affidavit goes on to say that "Zimmerman disregarded the police dispatcher" who told him to stop, and "continued to follow Martin who was trying to return to his home."

Zimmerman, the affidavit says, "confronted Martin and a struggle ensued."

According to the affidavit: "Trayvon Martin's mother has reviewed the 911 calls and identified the voice crying for help as Trayvon Martin's. Zimmerman shot Martin in the chest."

That is a prosecution document and certainly represents one theory of the case. The defense will challenge many of those points, as we know.

I especially like the passive voice at the critical plot point: "...a struggle ensued".  Those pesky struggles, ensuing like that! One might have thought the prosecution would at least argue that Zimmerman initiated the struggle, in addition to the verbal confrontation.

A minor puzzle is this - from the Miami Herald:

Corey declined to discuss in detail how the investigation was carried out, but her statements shed some light on how the prosecution team reached the decision on a second-degree murder charge. She said the decision was made last week, and prosecutors used the arrest warrant an investigator had sought early in the case.

If - IF! - the affidavit described above is the arrest warrant mentioned by the Herald, then how did it come to include the details from the cellphone girlfriend? She was brought forward by Martin family attorney Ben Crump after the release of the 911 calls and was originally only going to talk to the Federal investigators [my skepticism about the circumstances of her emergence is here].

The obvious guess is that she (i.e., Mr. Crump) changed her mind and talked to the state investigators, who used her story to update the base affidavit.

Just as a reminder of how little seems to have changed, here is the Orlando Sentinel from Apr 2:

Some news agencies have reported that Sanford's lead investigator, Chris Serino, wanted Zimmerman charged with manslaughter that night but Wolfinger's office put a stop to it. The city of Sanford issued a statement saying that is not true.

Police did that night prepare an incident report that lists "manslaughter" as the possible crime being investigated, but in every case in which an officer prepares an incident report, he or she fills in that spot with some crime and statute number to allow the agency to properly report crime statistics to the FBI.

Two weeks ago, during an exclusive interview with the Sentinel, [sidelined police chief] Lee disclosed certain details of the investigation and during that session, attended by Serino and others, Serino said his investigation turned up no reliable evidence that cast doubt on Zimmerman's account – that he had acted in self-defense.

"The best evidence we have is the testimony of George Zimmerman, and he says the decedent was the primary aggressor in the whole event," Serino told the Sentinel March 16. "Everything I have is adding up to what he says."

Numbers add up to nothing.

The defense counsel thinks his client has a better chance in a court of law than in the court of public opinion:

After Zimmerman exited, O'Mara asked the judge to seal documents in the court file containing other information -- including witness statements and information.

"I am seeking on my clients behalf... that we do a complete sealing of that record," O'Mara said, adding that the sealing would be temporary. The judge agreed.

After the hearing, prosecutor Bernie De La Rionda asked reporters gathered outside for patience.

"In the rule of law, we have jury trials for a purpose," De La Rionda said. O'Mara echoed that sentiment.

"It really, truly, it works," O'Mara said of the judicial system, telling reporters that in a case of this profile, if it doesn't work, "you'll tell us."

O'Mara said it made more sense to forgo a bond hearing at this point, electing to give time to allow the fervor surrounding the case to die down. He said his client is in protective custody.

If the publicity dies down the pressure on the prosecutor to showboat may diminish, if that is what is happening here.  And it might work - a Kardashian is bound to do something daft any day now, yes?

I do remember (perhaps incorrectly) that the Duke defense team scuttled the prosecution and kept the case out of court by leaking exculpatory material to the press. But I seem to recall leaks from both sides there.

THAT ALLEGED RACIAL EPITHET: Mrk Levin just read the affidavit on his radio show.  If I heard him correctly, the alleged epithet mumbled by Zimmerman on the 911 call was "Effing pukes". But the copy provided by 'TJ6' seems to say "punks".  Does Levin need glasses, or do I need a hearing aid?  Not exclusive possibilities.

THE GIST:

The map is not friendly to the notion that Zimmerman overtook an urgently fleeing Martin.  Zimmerman was behind him and his detination in front.  Martin doubling back makes a lot more sense in explaining how they met.

As to Martin being scared, let's keep in mind - when the young lady was telling this story Zimmerman was believed to be 250 pounds, based on his 2005 police report.

Now the Times has him down to 170. So the 6'3" 150 lbs Martin was fleeing from the 5'9" 170 lb. Zimmerman?  How scared was he?  So scared that doubling back makes no sense?

I can believe that Zimmerman seemed ominous when parked inside his SUV.  Once he stepped outside he became the Incredible Shrinking Threat.

THE RACE CARD, SLYLY: The affidavit claims that Zimmerman "profiled" Martin but does not describe the profiling.  Walking from patio to patio rather than sticking to the sidewalk?  Peering into windows?  Being black?  No guts at all.

If
Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/04/12/v-fullstory/2744193/george-zimmerman-charged-with.html#storylink=cpy

 

Zimmerman Trial - Evidence Ex Machina, Or Not?

Observers of the opening of the case against George Zimmerman routinely note that their views are based on the publicly available information. The general presumption is that the prosecutor has more, including high tech forensics reports, that may put Zimmerman's self-defense claim in a new light.

But what if this is as good as it gets?  Today's Miami Herald is, well, surprising:

Corey declined to discuss in detail how the investigation was carried out, but her statements shed some light on how the prosecution team reached the decision on a second-degree murder charge. She said the decision was made last week, and prosecutors used the arrest warrant an investigator had sought early in the case.

Her investigators made several trips to the scene of the shooting, retrieving evidence from Sanford police and re-interviewing witnesses in the neighborhood.

“A lot of the witnesses had already made statements in public even before we took over the case,” she said. “A thorough review of all of the statements was done.”

Last month, Corey told The Herald that her investigators would be looking at a wide range of evidence, including the gun used by Zimmerman and the clothes he was wearing the night of the shooting. She said 911 tapes — in which someone is heard screaming for help before the fatal gunshot — would be “critical” and would be analyzed.

The Sanford Police and Zimmerman’s former attorneys had said that when all the evidence was made public — including unedited 911 calls — the decision to release Zimmerman after the shooting would be better understood. But Corey apparently found enough evidence to believe the state’s Stand Your Ground law did not apply in this case.

“If Stand Your Ground becomes an issue, we fight it,” she said.

The case can't be this complicated.  The local police and DA weren't prepared to press charges; Ms. Corey is.  The non-exclusive explanations of that fact include:

(a) she developed new information from witnesses;

(b) she finally got back some lab work that broke Zimmerman's story;

(c) the Sanford PD and DA were incompetent or overly cautious in their charging decision.

The Miami Herald is not describing breakthrough witnesses, breakthrough lab work, or poor performance in Sanford.  So what shifted, other than the political winds?

And do my eyes deceive me, or did the Miami Herald report that the 911 tapes with background screaming were "critical" and "would be" analyzed?  "Would be"?  As in, it hasn't happened yet? 

I may be the wrong guy to ask, but I don't think any voice analysis will survive admissibility standards (Frye in Florida state trials, Daubert otherwise.) And all these experts, including two quoted in the Orlando Sentinel, will have to talk their way past their own websites to get that "analysis" in - matching screams to speech is just not standard accepted, reviewed science.

And speaking of science, the Daily Caller tackled that point with forensic audiologist Tom Oewn, who claims to be able to match the 911 screams to either Zimmerman or Martin (or, of course, the 13 year old bystander):

Reached for comment, Owen told TheDC that he has conducted his own study — “The Owen Study” — of more than 400 different pitches, screams, and voice disguises. The study is unpublished.

That is not the decisive evidence we are looking for.  But let's promote Mr. Owen's new software for him, shall we? Cui bono, and Cui LOL?

Look, if a lab report came back four weeks after the shooting demonstrating a complete absence of powder residue on Martin's clothing and insisting the two men must have been at least, say, ten feet apart to explain that result, then fine - the Sanford PD didn't have that test and Ms. Corey does.

But it sounds like what we have seen is a lot like what we are going to get.  Yike.

PROCEDURAL GAMES: The defense will be entitled to the discovery process by which they see the prosecution case.  Maybe Ms. Corey wants to delay some lab work or voice analysis, just to keep the defense guessing - does the defense take a plea deal now or gamble on a potentially decisive lab test not currently available to either side?

I don't know if that is ethical, but I also don't know if ethical concerns are at the top of Ms. Corey's list just now. But I do know the day is not long enough for a catalog of my ignorance...

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/04/12/v-fullstory/2744193/george-zimmerman-charged-with.html#storylink=cpy

 

A New Front In The War On The One Percenters

Captain Ed notes a new study that incorporates government transfers, employer sponsored health benefits, and actual households in an assessment of income inequality and the middle class.  Not so good for the Occupiers, but as the Captain notes, it implies that these transfer programs are necessary and helpful.

Never Worked A Day In Her Life

The hard-working Jennifer Rubin catalogs the latest TeamObama debacle.

This Pew Research Center study from 2009 has background on the never-ending 'mommy wars'.

From Pew:

Roughly four-in-ten women, including 34% of women with children age 17 or younger, do not work outside the home. According to a 2007 Pew Research Center survey, these at-home moms are slightly younger, on average, than moms who work full or part time. They have less formal education and lower household incomes than working mothers. Only 21% of at-home moms are college graduates, compared with 34% of working moms. And, while 37% of at-home moms report an annual household income of less than $30,000, only 20% of working moms fall into this income category.²

In addition, at-home moms are more likely than working moms to be Hispanic.

I guess Mormon multi-millionaires are not a large part of the survey. From Wikipedia I infer that her youngest son was 16 when she came down with multiple sclerosis in 1997.

MORE: Bill Jacobson finds an earlier Hillary Rosen:

And what about the argument that [Sarah Palin] is a negligent mother who will be distracted from her important role? I am a mother who constantly feels the pressure from others about whether I am fit to be a parent, whether I put my kids first often enough and whether my children get enough of my attention. Who has the right to judge my family?

My grandmother always said, “You can’t tell time on someone else’s clock.” Judgments about people’s personal lives are better left unsaid and unrealized.

Is my point that she is inconsistent as well as stupid?  Why bother.

 

Stand Your Ground - Is It Part Of The Trayvon Martin Case, And How?

Florida's Stand Your Ground law (776) has been singled out by the NY Times (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) and the left as a key obstacle to justice in the Trayvon Martin killing. Yet Jacob Sullum and others insist that, based on the available information, George Zimmerman was not in a situation where his duty to retreat was at issue; consequently, this is a normal self-defense scenario and Stand Your Ground should not be a whipping boy.

The resolution is here; I welcome feedback but this Florida attorney has put in one article bits and pieces I have seen floating around elsewhere.

And the answer is, both sides are right but Jacob Sullum is righter [Mr. Sullum makes similar points more modestly here]. Stand Your Ground was primarily about a presumption of reasonable force in a self-defense situation at home or in one's car.  It also eliminated the duty to retreat in other situations, but the duty to retreat does not apply here. So far, Mr. Sullum is carrying the day.

However!  Prior to the passage of Stand Your Ground these self-defense arguments would be raised at trial.  Stand Your Ground created the basis for a new pre-trial hearing which can terminate the case on self-defense grounds; if the defendant loses there, they can raise self-defense again at trial.

From the article:

The procedures for asserting prosecutorial immunity under the Stand Your Ground Law are outlined in Peterson v. State, 983 So. 2d 27, 29 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008), a Florida First District Court of Appeal decision.  The Petersen decision definitively established that Section 776.032 was created by the Florida Legislature to establish a true immunity and not merely an affirmative defense.  The Court stated that, when immunity under the law is properly raised by a defendant, the trial court (at a hearing) must decide the matter by confronting and weighing only factual disputes.  Petersen held that a defendant may raise the question of statutory immunity pre-trial and, when such claim is raised, the trial court must determine whether the defendant has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that immunity attaches.  The trial court may not deny a motion for immunity simply because factual disputes exist.

...

With regard to the Trayvon Martin case, the notion that Florida’s Stand Your Ground law prohibits the prosecution of George Zimmerman is fundamentally false.  Although, if prosecuted, George Zimmerman may attempt to later assert immunity, this does not prevent a prosecution from being initiated.  Prior to forming Hussein & Webber, P.L., Attorney Troy J. Webber served as an Assistant Public Defender in the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit of Florida, the circuit governing Sanford, Florida.  During that time, the State Attorney’s Office for the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit routinely prosecuted defendants in the face of “Stand Your Ground” Motions.  In those cases, the prosecutor would file charges, and defense counsel would file a “Stand Your Ground” Motion for Declaration of Immunity and Dismissal [Click Here for an Example]. The matter was then heard at an evidentiary hearing, where the defense had to show its entitlement to immunity by a preponderance of the evidence.  If successful, immunity was granted and the case dismissed.  If unsuccessful, the prosecution resumed and the case resolved by way of plea or trial.  

From the NY Times:

The case will almost certainly include a pretrial hearing to determine whether the state’s Stand Your Ground law, which grants broad protections to people who claim to have killed in self-defense, applies; if the judge finds that Mr. Zimmerman acted appropriately, the case will end there. If the judge decides that the protections of the law do not apply, the case will go forward.

At trial, however, the question of self-defense can be brought up again and possibly will, said Robert Weisberg, a criminal law expert at Stanford Law School.

Normally a prosecutor would anticipate this process, evaluate the likelihood of success, and decide whether to bring charges. We certainly hope that happened here, and that Ms. Corey has a much stronger case than the publicly available information suggests.

BONUS TIMESWATCH: The duty to retreat evidently extends to Times editors.  Two of their early fulminations against "Stand Your Ground" specifically mention a duty to retreat:

March 21:

They threaten public safety by eliminating the longstanding legal requirement that someone sensing a threat has a reasonable “duty to retreat” from perceived danger before resorting to deadly force.

March 29:

Reported differences between local and state investigators over whether to charge Mr. Zimmerman initially only underline the dangerous vagaries of Stand Your Ground laws passed at the demand of the gun lobby in a score of states. Their lethal flaw is the abolition of the traditional legal duty to retreat from a threat before resorting to deadly force.

The duty to retreat is not at issue if Zimmerman really was flat on his back getting pummelled.  However, Stand Your Ground did create the basis for his pre-trial hearing.

In their most recent editorial, an April 12 victoy lap, the Times editors do not mention "retreat" but provide new evidence that the left hand does not know what the far left hand is doing; in reciting the background they include this:

In this case, Mr. Zimmerman exited his car to follow the teenager despite a 911 dispatcher’s warning: “We don’t need you to do that.”

Hah!  Ms. Alvarez reported that correctly today - Mr. Zimmerman was already out of his car when he got those instructions and responded "OK" when advised to go back.  As to what he actually did, the trial may tell.

But as evidence that Times editors don't follow their own links or read their own newspaper, let's follow their link to the March 20 coverage by Ms. Alvarez:

In the 911 call, Mr. Zimmerman, using an expletive and speaking of Trayvon, said they “always get away.” The 911 dispatcher told him not to get out of the car and said the police were on their way. Mr. Zimmerman was already outside. A dispute began. Mr. Zimmerman told the police that Trayvon attacked him and that he fired in self-defense.

She was right then, she is right now, and the Times editors are just making stuff up. Or recycling "news" they didn't get from the Paper of Record.

If they don't take thier own reporting seriously, or follow their own links, why should we?

Semi-Props To Ms. Alvarez of the NY Times; Mockery For Their Editors

Yesterday Lizette Alvarez triggered a bit of a reader revolt in the comments to her website story which included a brief summary of the Trayvon Martin shooting, and I joined in from this post.

Today, Ms. Alvarez has expanded and corrected the summary, so now cranks like me ought to acknowledge her effort and responsiveness.  It's nice to see the Times focusing on the truth and responding to the concerns of all their readers across the political spectrum.  Weird, but nice.  [In an UPDATE we learn that we have less company in reading the Times than we imagined - Times editors are ignoring their own reporting. Maybe the cranks and critics are the last remaining audience.]

Less weird, in this age of web journalism where stories are never final, is that the Times has flushed the old story and re-linked to the expanded, corrected version.  Folks who wonder if the Times was originally wrong can see my excerpt from yesterday commemorated in this screenshot of the Times archive search.

The expanded story now reads as follows:

In this case, Mr. Zimmerman, who had founded a neighborhood watch over the summer after a string of burglaries in the area, saw Mr. Martin, began following him, and called 911, telling the dispatcher that he appeared “suspicious.”

The dispatcher asked if Mr. Zimmerman was following him. “Yeah,” Mr. Zimmerman said.

“O.K.., we don’t need you to do that,” the dispatcher said. Mr. Zimmerman said: “O.K.”

The case will probably hinge on what happened next.

Much better. And if the cranks and critics did in fact contribute to improving a first draft, well, we will use this newfound power wisely. I hope. After we catch our breath.

We have lots to cover and more to come, so away we go - in the next post we Stand Our Ground!

UPDATE: It's two papers in one! Times editors don't read their own paper or follow their own links, which is interesting to learn - why are we taking their reporting seriously if they don't?

From their editorial today lauding the decision to charge George Zimmerman:

In this case, Mr. Zimmerman exited his car to follow the teenager despite a 911 dispatcher’s warning: “We don’t need you to do that.”

I urge them to read their current coverage.  Or, I urge them to read the link they provided, to a March 20 story by Ms. Alvarez:

In the 911 call, Mr. Zimmerman, using an expletive and speaking of Trayvon, said they “always get away.” The 911 dispatcher told him not to get out of the car and said the police were on their way. Mr. Zimmerman was already outside. A dispute began. Mr. Zimmerman told the police that Trayvon attacked him and that he fired in self-defense.

She was right then, she is right now, and I don't know where the editors of the Paper of Record are getting their "news".

PILING ON: They aren't getting their news from their own exhaustive April 1 study of the case:

Mr. Zimmerman told the dispatcher that the hooded figure was now running. He jumped out of his car to follow him, the beep-beep of his car, as recorded on the 911 call, announcing the instant that he moved beyond his understood mandate as neighborhood watch coordinator.

The wind could be heard whooshing through Mr. Zimmerman’s cellphone as he tried to keep the visitor in view. Also heard is a garbled epithet that some have interpreted to be a racial slur, though his father insisted that his son would never say anything like that. Dispatcher: “Are you following him?”

Mr. Zimmerman: “Yeah.”

Dispatcher: “O.K., we don’t need you to do that.”

Mr. Zimmerman: “O.K.”

He and the dispatcher arranged for Mr. Zimmerman to meet a police officer near the mailboxes at the development’s clubhouse, and the call ended with a “thank you” and a “you’re welcome.”

Some of what happened next, along a poorly lighted path that runs between the back ends of two long rows of town houses, is lost to the night.

Zimmerman Charged With Second Degree Murder

The 'information' (i.e., indictment) from Angela Corey on behalf of the people of Florida is here, from their website. The information defines 2nd degree murder and tells us that Zimmerman shot Martin, so now we know.  She cites as being violated:

782.04(2), 775.087(1) and 775.087(2), Florida Statutes.

Here are two Florida defense attorneys reviewing the statutes. From the second:

Second degree murder cases often involve a death that allegedly occurred because of a heat of passion or act that was so dangerous is warrants a criminal action be brought against the Defendant. The classic example is the spouse who finds their partner having an affair with another person and immediately acts to kill either the partner or the partner's lover. In order to convict a defendant in Florida of Second-degree murder, the State of Florida must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

1.  
   1. The victim is dead;
   2. The death was caused by the criminal act of the defendant;
   3. There was an unlawful killing of the victim by an act imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind without regard for human life.

Understanding a second degree murder can be more confusing than the more serious first degree murder. The "criminal act" reference in the statute must be a single event or series of related actions arising from and performed pursuant to a single design or purpose of committing the murder or creating the dangerous condition that led to the death. Although second-degree murder can carry a potential incarceration of up to life in prison, the death penalty cannot be imposed on a person found guilty of second-degree murder.

From the first site:

Murder with a Depraved Mind occurs when a person is killed, without any premeditated design, by an act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind showing no regard for human life.

The primary distinction between Premeditated First Degree Murder and Second Degree Murder with a Depraved Mind is that First Degree Murder requires a specific and premeditated intent to kill.

The relevant defenses to 2nd degree murder are these:

Justifiable Homicide

The killing of a human being is justifiable homicide and lawful if done while resisting an attempt by someone to kill you or to commit a felony against you.

Self Defense

Also known as the justified use of deadly force, self defense is a defense to the crime of Second Degree Murder. Please view the Florida Self Defense section for more information.

I infer that the prosecutor believes she can overcome Zimmerman's self-defense narrative.  The still-secret forensics might make that easy, but the witnesses who have come forward are not, in my opinion, going to be enough. And there is the puzzle of why it was that Wolfinger, the original prosecutor, saw no case at all. New forensics, new witnesses, or just a new, positive winning attitude?

I very much hope she has a real case and is not just throwing a body to the mob. The trial schedule may provide a clue - an acquital before the election won't be good for the estabishment.

FULL DISCLOSURE: I saw some BS, headline grabbing arrests and prosecutions by Rudy Giuliani in the 80's, so I know it happens.

E. Robert Wallach, whom Mr. Giuliani unsuccessfully prosecuted in the Wedtech case, once described Mr. Giuliani as engaging in "prosecutorial wilding": handcuffing and carting away three Wall Street traders, two of whom were later cleared; the prosecutions of Bess Myerson and Imelda Marcos, both of whom were acquitted; the prosecution and conviction of financial figures, later reversed on appeal.

Mike Nifong of the Duke debacle is fresher in people's minds.

Opening A New Front Against NBC

This will be swept awy by the Special Prosecutor's press conference scheduled for 6PM, but here we go:

If NBC's non-investigation of five appearances of the bogus Zimmerman 911 edit isn't enough, let's poke at this mystery - what "enhanced" police video did MSNBC air last month, what did it really show, and where is it now?

Bob Somerby of the Daily Howler called this out on April 4 but we can illustrate it with a screenshots.  Over to Bob:

Last Thursday afternoon, MSNBC played videotape of Zimmerman’s apparent injuries which was much more “enhanced,” much more clear. See THE DAILY HOWLER, 3/30/12.

Martin Bashir referred to this tape as “an extended and newly released surveillance video” which showed “new angles, never seen before, of George Zimmerman being brought into the Sanford police station.” This suggested that MSNBC had received a second tape from the Sanford police video system—that this was not the same old tape others had aired before.

Bashir's tape did provide a much clearer look at the back of Zimmerman’s head. It seemed to show a rather large goose-egg style bump on the back of his head, with a rather clear abrasion atop it.

This tape is much more “enhanced” than the ABC tape. And it has now disappeared.

He linked to a March 30 post which included this:

Most strikingly, this new video showed close-ups of the back of Zimmerman’s head—footage which hadn’t been shown Wednesday night. Rather clearly, these close-ups seemed to show a fairly substantial goose-egg style lump on the back of Zimmerman’s head, with a fairly clear abrasion at its crown.

You too can watch this “extended and newly released surveillance video,” with its “new angles, never seen before.” To do so, just click here. The new close-ups are shown four times, starting at 2:45.

As you watch these close-up shots, you will hear [Martin] Bashir and his guest, Joy-Ann Reid, as they keep stating the party line: There is no sign of injury to Zimmerman on these tapes! In fairness to Reid, and this is important: Reid wasn’t present in the studio. We would assume that she wasn’t able to see this new videotape.

Why did Bashir say the things he did? Go ahead! You explain!

I have followed the links, listened to the Kafka-esque dialogue, and saved the screen shot above which appeared during the 'no apparent injury' discussion.

Where is the video now?  Was it authentic and buried?  Was it fake, and if so, why run it? Or, why ask why?

By way of comparison, Al Sharpton of MSNBC recently presented without comment a different video. Back to Bob:

As usual, Sharpton, Coffey and Padowitz were echoing each others’ views. To watch the full segment, click here.

For us, a rather shocking moment occurs around 11:45 on this tape.

At that point, without comment from Sharpton, new videotape of Zimmerman appears. It offers a very large close-up of the back of his head as he arrives at the Sanford police station on the night of the killing.

This close-up isn’t grainy. And wow! In this close-up image, the back of Zimmerman’s head seems to be completely pristine. There isn’t the slightest sign of any blemish or injury.

There isn’t a stub of a hair out of place. There is no sign of any injury. To judge from this new close-up view, Zimmerman didn’t suffer the slightest wound or abrasion on the night of the killing—just exactly as we libs have been told. (See the second comment to Drum, above.)

Does that close-up represent an accurate picture of Zimmerman’s head on the night of the killing? We have no idea. But this close-up photo is impossible to reconcile with two earlier close-up shots, including one close-up which was aired by MSNBC on March 29. That close-up seemed to show an obvious goose-egg on the back of Zimmerman’s head, crowned with an obvious abrasion.

Mr. Sharpton doesn't say "no sign of injury", nor does he explain whether the video is enhanced or not; ABC News exhausted that topic.

What videos does NBC have in its archives, and which are authentic?  Inquiring minds want to know.

Look Quick!

I am posting in a new forum, courtesy of my devoted daughter.  KTD, as we say.

MSNBC: Zimmerman To Be Charged At 6PM

[Lizette Alvarez of the NY Times is speculating again; see "FROM THE ELITE MEDIA" below]

From MSNBC:

By Pete Williams, NBC News, and M. Alex Johnson, msnbc.com

Updated at 4 p.m. ET: The special prosecutor in the Trayvon Martin case will announce criminal charges against George Zimmerman on Wednesday, a law enforcement official told NBC News.

The nature of the charges wasn't immediately known, the official told NBC News Justice Department correspondent Pete Williams, speaking on condition of anonymity. But because Angela Corey — the special prosecutor appointed by Florida Gov. Rick Scott to re-examine the case — previously announced that she wouldn't take the case to a grand jury, first-degree murder is not an option.

Corey's office confirmed that a news conference would be at 6 p.m. ET in Jacksonville, Fla.

Authorities in Sanford, Fla. — where Zimmerman, 28, a neighborhood watch volunteer, shot Martin, 17, on Feb. 26 — began preparing for public reaction to the announcement from Corey. Several counties in the region activated their emergency operations centers and were on heightened alert, NBC News' Kerry Sanders reported from Sanford, while Seminole County sheriff's deputies spent Wednesday morning setting up barricades along the booking area for new inmates at the county jail, NBC station WESH of Orlando reported.

I hope the forensics contradict Zimmerman's story and make this an easy case. But that is not my prediction. An alternative view is that prosecutors prosecute and she knew which way the wind was blowing with this one.

FROM THE ELITE MEDIA: Lizette Alvarez of the NY Times propagates some beloved lefty speculation in her summary of the shooting (my emphasis):

The shooting occurred the evening of Feb. 26 when Mr. Martin was walking back from a store to the home of his father’s girlfriend in a gated community in Sanford, just north of Orlando. Mr. Zimmerman, who had called 911 to report a man who he said was behaving suspiciously, had trailed Mr. Martin for several minutes and had continued to do so even after having been advised by a 911 operator that he should stop.

From the 911 transcript, the "advice", which has no legal force, was "OK, we don't need you to do that".  Zimmerman responded "OK".

Per the Zimmerman story as retold by his father, he was on his way back to his SUV, which puts him in compliance with the 911 advice, when he was assaulted. Zimmerman may have been lying (if this re-telling reflects his statement) - as a concealed carry permit holder, he ought to know Florida's self-defense laws and may have let those laws guide his statements to the police.

But the Times has no basis for reporting as fact what is really their speculation - for all they or we know, Zimmerman in fact did break off his "pursuit" when so advised.

STRAY CHEAPSHOT: I can't get their comments section to load but check out this drivel from "Above The Law" (and Away From The Facts), via Memeorandum:

This seems like a good time to remind people of the part of this story that keeps getting overlooked: the part where the Sanford, Florida police did a terrible job. They didn’t place Zimmerman in custody, test him for drugs or alcohol, or evidently do a thorough investigation into his claims. This man has been walking around free all of this time, and with his gun.

Overlooked?  People who don't look for facts are less likely to find them.  As to the Scary Gun, the police took it as evidence the night of the shooting and (surprise!) are not in the habit of returning evidence during high profile investigations.

The expert commentary continues:

I certainly don’t know what (if anything) Zimmerman may be guilty of, but I know you’re not supposed to be able to gun down unarmed people in the street and then get a walk from the police.

The author could have stopped at "I don't know".

This should be an interesting national conversation.

 

Congrats To Les Jones

Congratulations to the distracted Les Jones; NBC Miami can relax.

I will add that NBC Miami reprter Christina Hernandez was generous with her time on Twitter with some commenters here, and we infer from her Tweets that she will be accepting congratulations and best wishes (and diapers) shortly.

So if someone wants to take a brief break from the media scuffling to reflect on our common humanity and shared values and goals... well, don't get all maudlin on us.  We are unrelenting in whatever it is we do around here. Focus!

WaPo Media Watchdog Barks Up Wrong Tree, Protects NBC

WaPo media watchdog Erik Wemple was all over NBC when their bogus Zimmerman edit was limited to the March 27 Today Show.  Now that the bogus edit has been discovered at the March 22 Today show and three times at NBC Miami, he is all over the critics calling for a more extensive investigation and is burying deep in his links their discovery of the broader mess. It looks as if Mr. Wemple was willing to follow the story until it actually led somewhere.

There was a time when WaPo media watchdog Erik Wemple considered NBC's deplorable editing of the George Zimmerman 911 "He looks black" call to be a big story - here are 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 posts covering it. Each deals with the tempest around the March 27 Today Show, described in detail here. Eventually NBC apologized, explained that time constraints were the problem, and fired a producer.  The firing prompted this tough talk from Mr. Wemple:

The sheer breathtakingness of that elision has convinced some onlookers that NBC acted with malice in this instance — that it was out to portray Zimmerman as someone prone to racial profiling. The New York Post spoke for this group in a Thursday editorial arguing that the audio editing “constitutes pretty damning evidence of willful misconduct by NBC News.” NBC’s statement from Tuesday contends it was simply an error, and Reuters’s sources at the network say the same thing: “The sources described the producer’s actions as a very bad mistake, but not deliberate.”

What we know is that it couldn’t possibly look worse. The audio editing appeared to go out of its way to besmirch Zimmerman. It would have been easier for NBC to have simply let the actual, and less damning, version of the tape play for its viewers. Yet until I see or find more evidence, I am not going to follow the New York Post’s diagnosis of willful misconduct. Colossal errors take all forms, including ones that look like conspiracies.

It couldn't look worse?  Well, how about if NBC critics discovered that the same bogus Zimmerman edit appeared on the March 22 Today Show?  Did the NBC investigation uncover, explain, and apologize for that?

It couldn't look worse?  How about if NBC critics discovered that the same bogus Zimmerman edit appeared three times in text stories at NBC Miami from March 19/20?  Did the time constraints of television also create an unexplained pixel shortage? Did NBC's investigation uncover, explain and apologize for that?

It couldn't look worse?  How about if the three NBC Miami stories from March 19/20 were "updated" on April 9, the day after critics pointed them out, to eliminate the bogus Zimmerman text? Did NBC's investigation explain and apologize for that?

Sounds like a story, right!  Right? Wrong.  Mr. Wemple is now taking Brent Bozell to task for "rooting for the story" and calling for a Congressional investigation.  Are readers trying to find any mention by Mr. Wemple of the fact that NBC's transgressions go well beyond their investigation and apology?  They can, if they click on Mr. Wemple's third link in which he describe Mr. Bozell as "gone activist".  Mr. Wemple then highlights the Bozell press release without noting the lead:

Alexandria, VA – Today, Media Research Center President Brent Bozell announces the media watchdog is calling upon Congress to investigate Comcast / NBC News for the intentional editing of the George Zimmerman audio that was broadcast multiple times and subsequently flamed the fires of racial hatred and animosity:

The word "multiple" serves as a clue there, which is probably why it was skipped.

Nowhere in his extensive text at that post or in this quick summary does Mr. Wemple find time for a sentence noting that NBC used the bogus edit five times but has only apologized and "explained" one instance. In fact, the latest Wemple summary points the other way:

In case you missed it---NewsBusters, the Web arm of the conservative Media Research Center, has done strong work on the NBC Zimmerman tape-editing fiasco. It was the first to spot the gaffe and kept following the story as it developed. Then it lapsed into rooting for it.

"The gaffe"?  How about "The gaffes", plural?  Only the most diligent of readers will crack this code.

There was a time when journalists thought the cover-up was as important as the crime.  Now, the NBC cover-up seems to be the signal to ignore the crime.

STILL, HE DESERVES A PROFILE IN COURAGE: Mr. Wemple is at least acknowledging that there is an NBC story out there, even as he minimizes it.  By way of contrast, Brian Stelter, media lapdog at the NY Times, broke the story of the firing of an NBC producer and has stayed away from this since.

I do worry that Mr. Wemple will take a lesson from this and conclude that it is safest to stay a million miles away from these troglodyte righties even if that means also staying 999,000 miles from the truth. It's working for Stelter!

Democrats Against ObamaCare

Investors Business Daily (which leans right!) reports on their poll finding Democrats aren't in love with ObamaCare generally or the individual mandate specifically:

And polls continue to show it has little popular support either. For example, a poll just conducted for IBD by TechnoMetrica Market Intelligence found that only 22% said they wanted the justices to uphold the entire law, while 37% said strike down the whole thing and 30% said to strike down only the law’s individual mandate to buy health insurance. Another 10% were unsure.

Strikingly, the same poll found that while 39% of Democrats wanted the law upheld, 38% wanted the mandate struck down and another 12% wanted the whole thing thrown out. In other words, 50% want part or all of the law tossed. Even taking into account that some of those may be liberals who dislike ObamaCare because it isn’t more expansive, it’s a striking rejection of the president’s main accomplishment by his own party.

They do not make the point that Obama spent the 2008 campaign opposing the individual mandate and only flip-flopped evolved after the election.

2012 could be fun, as Dems run ads showing Romney supporting ObamaCare and Reps run ads of Obama opposing the mandate.  Well, the Supremes may end our fun in June. Or start new fun!

To The Moon!

Some NASA scientists, engineers and astronauts protest NASA's politicization of science through its advocacy of global warming catastrophism.  There must be a better word, preferably a real one.  Alarmism!

OMG: SpellCheck can STFU about 'alarmism'.  And since it asked, if I were pounding the table about Muslim terrorists I would be an Islamalarmist.  Yeah I would.  Keurig!

The End Is Near?

Here is an odd announcement:

SANFORD, Fla. -

State Attorney Angela Corey, the special prosecutor in the Trayvon Martin case, announced on Tuesday night that she will hold a news conference sometime within the next three days.

In a memo from her office, Corey said she will release new information regarding the investigation into Martin's death, but no specifics were provided.

The new information might be charges, and yes, she might well announce in advance the timing of that ppress conference.  And since it would ruin the suspense, she might label the press conference as being devoted to 'new information' rather than to 'charges'.

On the other hand, this might be just what she would do if she were announcing no charges.

TIMING IS EVERYTHNG: Commenter 'cboldt' notes the deliberate uncertainty about time and place and suggests it is flash mob management:

The media will be notified three hours in advance of the news conference as to when and where it will be held -- either Jacksonville or Sanford.

That strongly suggests that Friday won't be the day, although reasoning inductively can get tricky here.

And in response, 'Chubby' wonders whether she would be worried about flash mobs if she planed to announce charges.

BE COOL: Writing at CNN, Alan Dershowitz reviews the publicly available evidence, caveats that with the point that the forensics may support or rebut Zimmerman, and urges calm:

(CNN) -- On the basis of the evidence currently in the public record, one likely outcome of the case against George Zimmerman is a mixed one: There may be sufficient evidence for a reasonable prosecutor to indict him for manslaughter, but there may also be doubt sufficient for a reasonable jury to acquit him.

Any such predictions should be accepted with an abundance of caution, however, because the evidence known to the special prosecutor, but not to the public, may paint a different picture. It may be stronger or weaker.

...

All this goes to show how factually driven this case is under Florida law. And we don't yet know all the facts. The special prosecutor, who has said she will not use a grand jury to decide whether to indict Zimmerman, has an obligation to consider all the evidence and to apply the law to the facts.

All she needs in order to indict is probable cause that a crime has been committed. A jury that ultimately decides whether the defendant is guilty needs much more: proof beyond a reasonable doubt. But what if a prosecutor concludes that there is both probable cause and a reasonable doubt?

That is the nightmare scenario that this prosecutor may well face. In ordinary circumstances, most prosecutors would not bring such a case, because it would be a waste of resources to indict someone who will probably be acquitted. But this is anything but a run-of-the-mill case.

Moreover, the Florida statute provides an additional layer of protection to a defendant claiming self-defense: A judge must decide whether the defendant is "immune from prosecution," that is, if the judge believes his actions fall under the law of self-defense.

So the following mixed outcome is certainly possible: The special prosecutor indicts; the judge does or doesn't grant immunity; if he doesn't, the jury acquits.

Many people would be unhappy with such a mixed outcome, but it is not the job of the law to make people happy.

So much authority lowering the public's expectations!  Yesterday it was the Times explaining that an ethical prosecutor really ought to clear the "reasonable doubt" threshold in her own heart, even though the law requires the lower "probable cause" to charge.

Justified! The Big Finish

Justified commences to wrap up Season III any minute now.

The burning question: what will happen to the blue-eyed boy, Robert Quarles?

(a) shot by Raylan Givens;

(b) shot twice by Raylan Givens;

(c) shot by Art, who is trying to bail out Raylan's ass;

(b) shot by Boyd just to cross us up;

(e) other.

My Connecticut moonshine is working (no, seriously) and I am locked, loaded, and ready to go.

Where's Zimmerman?

Yike - his counsel withdraws because they haven't heard from him since Sunday and he went rogue by contacting the prosecutor against their advice.

And here comes the 'I told you so' moment:

Attorney Hal Uhrig said that his legal team is still concerned about Zimmerman, who he said is "not doing well emotionally" and may be suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder.

From days past:

But setting aside his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, Zimmerman can simply take the stand and explain that, although he cooperated with the police as best he could and made whatever statements he made to them, due to the blows on his head suffered during the scuffle as well as natural post-traumatic stress, his memory of the details of that night is hazy.

So - when the defense moves to strike everything he has said to the police on this basis, don't be surprised.

Scientists - More Likely To Measure What They Attempt To Measure

Glenn Reynolds elevates my blood pressure back into the danger zone with a link to this faux science:

Contrary to popular perception, a large proportion of obese Americans can and do lose weight, say researchers at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. What's more, they say, the old tried and true methods of eating less fat and exercising are some of the most effective paths to weight loss success.

Less fat? Dr. Willett of Harvard has been decrying the misguided emphasis on dietary fat for years!  And what about Gary Taubes, Dr. Atkins, the Paleo and Primal people, and the many other low-sugar, low refined carbs dieters?

Let's go to the study - the researchers compiled survey data over several years that asked obese people what diet plans they had followed.  And here is what we find in the footnotes to the Table 3 review of successful and unsuccessful approaches:

'Other method' category includes those choosing “other method,” or other specified methods with cell sizes 50, or those choosing “ate fewer carbohydrates,” which was available only in the 2005–2006 survey year.

For heaven's sake!  "Skipped meals", "Ate less fat", "ate less food" and "exercised" were on the survey every year from 2001-2006; "Ate fewer carbohydrates" appeared once.

Write-in candidates rarely win elections.  And it is hard to measure what you don't measure. However, this does illustrate a certain resistance on the part of "the medical establishment" to the controversial low-carb Atkins diet and its intellectual successors.

Since you ask, a plug for low-carbs does appear in the text:

The percentage of obese Americans trying to lose weight in the present study (63%) is similar to that found in previous national studies, as are the strategies employed
by participants trying to lose weight.2–4 Recently, Sciamanna and colleagues identifıed 14 strategies reported to be successful for 10% weight loss among a national mail panel survey, reporting the strongest associations for weight loss programs, eating fruits and vegetables, eating healthy snacks, limiting carbohydrates, controlling portions, doing different kinds of exercises, and focusing on the progress they had made.18 Among members of the National Weight Control Registry, the most common strategies associated with success included restricting types of foods, limiting quantity of food, and counting calories.13

Grrr. If someone at a cocktail party starts telling me that the latest science does not support the low-carb approach I will flex my slender self and... well, help myself to some celery.

IN THE BACK OF MY MIND: Changing the oil in a car every 5,000 miles my be great preventative maintenance but you won't be able to demonstrate that by neglecting oil changes for 50,000 miles and then commencing regular changes - the damage that could have been prevented by oil changes won't be undone with a late start.

Do I have a point?  Well, a person who is 100 pounds overweight may have a hormonal regulatory system that has collapsed, and it may be that no diet will be particularly effective.  However, a person who is trying to avoid the normal weight gain of their 20's and 30's, or the person who has gained twenty pounds in the ten years since school may see a dramatic benefit from a diet that is useless to an obese person.

So I wonder - learning which dietary approaches work for the obese should be useful in treating the obese, but does it teach much to the non-obese?

Santorum Out?

Rumors fly that Santorum is about to suspend his campaign.