ATLANTA — Legal experts say hate crimes, like the case against the three men convicted of killing Ahmaud Arbery, are often difficult to prove.
Federal prosecutors have presented evidence of racially charged texts and social media posts by two of the three men on trial in a Brunswick courtroom. A witness testified that the third man, Gregory McMichael, once went on an angry rant that included racist remarks.
Prosecuting a hate crime requires more than proving a defendant is a racist who has committed a crime according to Georgia State University Law Professor Nirej Sekhon.
“It’s demonstrating the connection between the two at a precise moment in time beyond a reasonable doubt,” Sekhon said. “That is the challenge. You’re looking at comments and remarks, looking at the proximity of those comments and remarks and the context.”
A history of hateful speech can be important evidence at a hate crimes trial, but experts say it doesn’t always result in a conviction.
In 2016, a racist rant at a suburban Chicago festival resulted in a viral video and hate crimes charges against Jessica Sanders. Video captured Sanders as she used racially charged language while taking s swipe and spitting at a black couple. According to the Chicago Sun Times, a judge found Sanders guilty of battery but not guilty of hate crimes.
Former Dekalb County District Attorney Robert James says in most cases you don’t have to prove why someone committed a crime. When it comes to hate crimes, motivation is everything.
“What motivated that assault? What motivated that murder? It’s oftentimes very difficult to prove what’s in a person’s heart and what they were thinking," James said.
According to the Department of Justice, race is the most common reason someone is targeted for a hate crime, followed by religious affiliation and sexual orientation.