And since you are trying this entirely new technique of decent manners, I'll respond in kind.
I would be most interested to see your take on all the evidence that the jury was prevented from seeing, to ensure Zimmerman's acquittal.
The jury HAD no choice, on the slanted evidence presented. Why is this judge's obvious bias simply accepted?
Why is there no attempt to bring the prosecution before a jury on a charge of collusion in that bias?
And why, in a civilised society is there no provision to waive "double jeopardy" in the event of a pre-fixed result?
In the modern context with its advancing technologies, double jeopardy would prevent any cold case which had gone to trial and failed, being reopened when conclusive new evidence points to injustice.
That is, I believe, why it has been revoked in the UK, where DNA advances have resulted in a large number of serious criminals (murderers, rapists etc) now deservedly languishing in jail for a very long time.