http://nycabc.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/updates-15-oct-2013.pdf
30 Sept – Marrissa Alexander released pending new trial
An important victory in the struggle to free Marissa Alexander was won Sept. 26 when the District Court of Appeals for Florida’s First District granted Alexander a new trial. MORE : By Amy Chang Marissa Alexander is a 32-year-old Black woman from Jacksonville, Fl., who was sentenced last year to a mandatory minimum of 20 years in prison for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. Alexander has a master’s degree and no prior criminal history. Her alleged victim was her abusive ex-partner Rico Gray who beat Alexander repeatedly, including while she was pregnant, and has a history of physically abusing other women. In 2010, Gray saw that Alexander had been exchanging text messages with her ex-husband. Despite Gray’s two Page 1 of 43 impressionable sons being in the home, Gray became enraged, threatening to kill Alexander. When Alexander, who had given birth a few days earlier, locked herself in the bathroom for protection, Gray broke through the door, strangled Alexander and shoved her head into the bathroom door. Alexander ran to the garage in an attempt to escape, but forgot her keys. When she realized she had to go back inside, she brought a handgun she kept in her car—a firearm for which she had a concealed weapons license. Gray continued to threaten her life and charged at her. In a clear case of measured self-defense, Alexander fired one warning shot upward into the ceiling causing no injuries and ceasing Gray’s attacks. As a result of this incident, Alexander was convicted of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, and sentenced to a mandatory twenty years in state prison under Florida Statute 775.087, also known as “10-20-life,” which provides for enhanced penalties for the use of a firearm during the commission of certain felony crimes. In Alexander’s case, because she discharged the firearm, her punishment was a non-negotiable 20 years. Since Florida has abolished parole, a 20-year mandatory sentence would mean that Alexander would be imprisoned for every single day of those twenty years—7,300 days—without the possibility of getting time off for good behavior in prison. New trial granted That was Alexander’s fate until Florida’s appellate court reversed her conviction on Sept. 26. The court’s decision to reverse Alexander’s conviction and grant a new trial was based on the instructions the judge gave to the jury prior to deliberations. Jury instructions, which are generally drafted and issued by the Florida Supreme Court, tell the jury how to apply the facts to the law to determine the verdict. In Florida, jury instructions are both read to the jury in the courtroom, and a hard copy of the instructions are provided to the jury for use in the deliberation room. In an absurd miscarriage of justice, the jury instructions in Alexander’s trial illegally shifted the burden of proof to the defense. In Florida, when the defendant claims self-defense, it becomes the prosecution’s burden to not only prove each element of the alleged crime beyond a reasonable doubt, but also to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense. In Alexander’s trial, the jury instructions indicated that the jury could not acquit Alexander unless Alexander proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Gray inflicted serious bodily injury upon her. In effect, Alexander was required to prove her innocence beyond a reasonable doubt. The jury deliberated for 12 minutes before convicting her. Due to the fundamental error in the jury instructions, the appellate court granted Alexander a new trial. While a new trial is a tremendous victory for Alexander, it is important to note that the court agreed with the State of Florida that Alexander should not be granted a new trial on the basis that Alexander was wrongfully denied immunity from prosecution under Florida’s controversial Stand Your Ground law, which does not require an individual to retreat in certain circumstances even if retreat from the conflict is possible. Disparate application of Stand Your Ground law This is the same law that the State of Florida cited in defending its decision to not charge George Zimmerman for 44 days following the murderous shooting death of unarmed Black teenager Trayvon Martin. As a self- appointed neighborhood cop, Zimmerman stalked Martin against the instructions of a 911 dispatcher. During that 911 call, Zimmerman made a number of vile and racist comments about Black males. Zimmerman harassed and attacked Martin when Martin posed no threat as he walked to his father’s house after getting candy and iced tea at a convenience store. Zimmerman then fatally shot Martin point-blank in the chest. The State of Florida gave Zimmerman the benefit of the doubt, allowing him to assert that he acted in self- defense rather than in perpetuation of a vicious campaign to demonize and criminalize young Black males. Zimmerman did not even have to request a hearing on whether he was legally entitled to immunity under Stand Page 2 of 43 Your Ground. He roamed free until an outburst of anger and militant organizing at the grassroots level forced the hand of the State of Florida to press charges. Elected State Attorney Angela Corey charged Zimmerman with second-degree murder instead of pursuing the more appropriate charge of first-degree murder. As if from an alternate universe, a jury of six people of whom five were white acquitted Zimmerman, stating the race was not a factor in the death of Martin. Now, too little too late, multiple jurors and Zimmerman’s wife have come forward lamenting that Zimmerman got away with murdering Martin. Compare the State of Florida’s treatment of Zimmerman against its treatment of Alexander. State Attorney Corey was the prosecutor in both Zimmerman’s and Alexander’s trials. Florida’s preference was to not prosecute Zimmerman at all despite evidence that Zimmerman was trigger-happy, racially motivated to target young Black males and had a history of violence. In contrast, Alexander had no criminal history, suffered multiple violent attacks at Gray’s hands, and was being threatened with death at the moment she fired a warning shot to keep Gray away from her so that she could retreat. Under oath, Gray admitted to physically abusing Alexander to the point of hospitalization, and threatening to hire a hit man. Alexander would have been justified in shooting Gray in self-defense. But, in her own words, Alexander chose the “lesser of two evils,” meaning she chose to fire a warning shot to discourage Gray from continuing to attack her, rather than incapacitating Gray with a gunshot wound. Yet, Alexander was sentenced to a mandatory minimum of 20 years in prison, while Zimmerman is roaming free with a concealed weapon. Racism of criminal justice system What does this all mean? In the U.S. criminal “justice” system, the actual facts and circumstances surrounding an alleged crime are not as important as is the race is of the defendant—the race of the person holding the gun. Had Zimmerman been a Black man, would he be free today? If Alexander were a white woman defending herself against domestic violence, would she have been sentenced to 20 years in prison? Does Stand Your Ground apply equally across nationalities and genders? The answer to these questions are no. Had it not been for grassroots organizing and unrelenting protests and demonstrations, Zimmerman would not have even been charged in the death of Martin, and Alexander would not have been granted a new trial. Left to its own devices, the criminal “justice” system would have been happy to see Zimmerman continue to do the job of cops on the beat for free by harassing young Black males in his gated community. The system would have had no problems with Alexander missing the first twenty years of her child’s life while falsely imprisoned. This is not just “left-wing hyperbole.” State Attorney Corey complained to the Washington Post, “I think social media is going to be the destruction of this country,” referring the online agitation and organizing that was key in bringing Alexander’s story to the forefront and securing a new trial. Perhaps she was also alluding to the role of social media in forcing her to reluctantly prosecute Zimmerman. While a new trial is a crucial victory for Alexander and her supporters, a new trial does not guarantee that Alexander will be acquitted. The same racist laws and predispositions of the criminal “justice” system that were present at the first trial will still be at play. True justice would be for Alexander to walk out of prison immediately a free woman. But the State of Florida would be foolish to dismiss the power of the people when they unite and fight back, which has shown time and time again throughout history to be a force more powerful than the gavel.