How is *this* even legal?

[mnealtx]

It's called the Socratic Method. One person leads another to the self-discovery of the answer by asking a series of questions.

Great - you can increase my knowledge by answering mine, then.

[jlw]

Great - you can increase my knowledge by answering mine, then.

I was trying to, but there was some baseline stuff that you are still aren't getting.

[mnealtx]

I was trying to, but there was some baseline stuff that you are still aren't getting.

Then EXPLAIN it...because right now, it seems a lot like "I know something you don't know".

I *understand* that the killing of Martin is considered the civil rights violation.

I *understand* that the gun was used to do so.

What I *don't* understand is how they can tie the two together in the sense that the gun somehow proves anything. It's already entered into records from the murder case that the gun was used - why do they need physical possession of it to further the CR case? It would seem that racially-motivated utterances or actions by Zimmerman (exclusive of the shooting itself) would be of more use to the gov't to make their case.... or do they not have to show the same sort of 'depraved mind' principal as for Murder 2, regarding a CR case?

[jlw]

Then EXPLAIN it...because right now, it seems a lot like "I know something you don't know".

I *understand* that the killing of Martin is considered the civil rights violation.

I *understand* that the gun was used to do so.

What I *don't* understand is how they can tie the two together in the sense that the gun somehow proves anything. It's already entered into records from the murder case that the gun was used - why do they need physical possession of it to further the CR case? It would seem that racially-motivated utterances or actions by Zimmerman (exclusive of the shooting itself) would be of more use to the gov't to make their case.... or do they not have to show the same sort of 'depraved mind' principal as for Murder 2, regarding a CR case?

Which gun?

[ToddG]

What I *don't* understand is...

I think what you don't understand is that the whole point of a Federal investigation is that DOJ doesn't think the Florida prosecutors & investigators did their job adequately. They're not interested in borrowing from the trial transcript that already exists. They're going to look at everything with fresh eyes. That means keeping all of the physical evidence. It's not like DOJ singled out the gun here. But the gun makes for a juicy soundbite on gun forums.

Three rabidly pro-gun guys -- one a career cop and two with law degrees (one of whom worked in a federal prosecutor's office and one who has spent considerable time working on 2A issues) -- have all said there's nothing unusual about USDOJ keeping a gun that was used to kill someone in an alleged civil rights trial. If these explanations remain inadequate I'd suggest applying to your nearest law school.

[mnealtx]

Which gun?

The same one as already entered as record as part of the criminal trial (Hands jlw proceedings of criminal case as evidence that Keltec P9 serial xyz123 was used to fire the fatal shot)

Now - care to explain just HOW having physical possession of said pistol vs. the court record from the criminal trial provides stronger *proof*? Are they going to re-autopsy Martin, too?

I've *ALREADY* (SEVERAL TIMES) stated that I don't understand how the gun connects *as* evidence. This is all part of public record...so can we quit with the leading questions and JUST EXPLAIN THE ISSUE, or how I'm misunderstanding it in my response, above?

[ST911]

Ideally, DOJ should obtain an order for the gun but they are not obligated to. Especially if the lower court authorized release of the property and the evidence custodian hadn't yet done so.

Transfer of evidence in declinations, deferrals, and for additional charges in different venues is quite normal.

[mnealtx]

I think what you don't understand is that the whole point of a Federal investigation is that DOJ doesn't think the Florida prosecutors & investigators did their job adequately. They're not interested in borrowing from the trial transcript that already exists. They're going to look at everything with fresh eyes. That means keeping all of the physical evidence. It's not like DOJ singled out the gun here. But the gun makes for a juicy soundbite on gun forums.

Explained that way, it makes much better sense - thank you.

However, it raises another question... doesn't this re-investigation in that regard (didn't do their job) start shading close to double jeopardy, since the original criminal case is complete? Didn't the original charge sheet from Corey claim a racial motive that was disproven in the criminal case?

Three rabidly pro-gun guys -- one a career cop and two with law degrees (one of whom worked in a federal prosecutor's office and one who has spent considerable time working on 2A issues) -- have all said there's nothing unusual about USDOJ keeping a gun that was used to kill someone in an alleged civil rights trial. If these explanations remain inadequate I'd suggest applying to your nearest law school.

If one of those three had provided the explanation you just had, my question would have been answered on the first page.

[ToddG]

However, it raises another question... doesn't this re-investigation in that regard (didn't do their job) start shading close to double jeopardy, since the original criminal case is complete? Didn't the original charge sheet from Corey claim a racial motive that was disproven in the criminal case?

Rather than getting into another back and forth about whether it's been explained in just the right way, check out the main Zimmerman thread. This has been covered there in detail.

[mnealtx]

Rather than getting into another back and forth about whether it's been explained in just the right way, check out the main Zimmerman thread. This has been covered there in detail.

It's not a matter of being 'explained in the right way', Todd. It's a matter that it really wasn't explained at *all* other than "yeah, it's normal".

I'll check the Zimmerman thread and see if anything posted in the last couple hours since I read it help to further address my questions.

Thank you again for the explanation you provided.