Final Jury Selected in George Zimmerman Trial

The final 6 jurors in the George Zimmerman trial will be:

  • B29
  • B76
  • B37
  • B51
  • E6
  • E40


  • E54
  • E13
  • B72
  • E28

Opening arguments begin Monday morning. Details of jurors, challenged jurors for whom race and gender neutral explanations had to be given by the parties, and the judges ruling on each to follow.

The hearing over voice/speaker identification is starting now, with Tom Owen as the state's rebuttal witness. He is present in court, not testifying by video conference as he did on direct examination at the earlier hearing.

< R.I.P. James Gandolfini | Thursday Night Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Well seems that there is always (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jun 20, 2013 at 03:21:21 PM EST
    new things to learn every day. Didn't know that you could have a murder trial in FL with only 6 jurors. Also surprised at the make-up of the jury.

    In florida (none / 0) (#8)
    by Pugfrench on Thu Jun 20, 2013 at 05:39:37 PM EST
    Only capital cases get 12 jurors. That fact still shocks me even though I've had known about it for a while.

    I found it rather hard to believe (none / 0) (#14)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jun 20, 2013 at 06:10:07 PM EST
    I kept going back looking for when they picked the other 6 jurors. Finally got around to googling how many jurors were required in FL for a 2nd. degree murder case and read that "only capital cases get 12 jurors."

    I didn't know that either until I read it (none / 0) (#17)
    by Teresa on Thu Jun 20, 2013 at 06:18:34 PM EST
    here last week. I wonder if any other states do that? I think it's terribly unfair to anyone charged with a crime in that state. It's way easier to sway fewer people than if there were 12.

    Wrong quote from Lily ... (3.50 / 2) (#10)
    by rickroberts on Thu Jun 20, 2013 at 05:42:53 PM EST
    This is the right one, and it makes sense:

    John came out and yelled Stop, I am calling the police, if TM was under threat he could have yelled at that point Help, this guy has a gun.
    He did not, he kept hitting GZ.

    Yeah (3.00 / 4) (#22)
    by Pugfrench on Thu Jun 20, 2013 at 06:37:07 PM EST
    It's too bad he didn't wait for TM to do serious damage before shooting him. Maybe if his skull had actually cracked open or he had been knocked unconscious, although I imagine it is hard to shoot while unconscious. But we can let you decide the cutoff. Just leave us your number and everyone can call you when they are being attacked to asked if they are injured enough for you . Or better yet you can have someone bash your head into the ground, after fracturing your nose and you can tell them when enough is enough to justify deadly force. But it only counts if its a stranger, and it is dark and you don't know if they are going to stop when you say stop, or continue until they feel you've had enough.
    The point of self defense is to PREVENT serious injury or death, not to avenge it.

    Voice ID (2.00 / 1) (#3)
    by woodchuck64 on Thu Jun 20, 2013 at 05:01:14 PM EST
    Aside from pseudo-science, is there any reason to think Martin is the one screaming?  

    I haven't seen any theory fleshed out but I gather the thought is that Zimmerman has the gun out on bottom and Martin is on top holding his wrist and shouting for help.   If the screams didn't sound so deathly afraid, that might be plausible.  But no one maintaining a measure of control in a fight with a person welding a deadly weapon is going to waste any breath on anything but keeping that gun pointed away.  Any calling out at all will be short and focused "GUN"/"HELP" so as not to exhaust energy.  No one resorts to screams of fear like I've heard on that tape unless he's losing the battle big time and he knows it.  It just isn't compatible with being on top in a fight.

    But I'm always open to a new theory.

    Add to that (2.00 / 1) (#6)
    by lily on Thu Jun 20, 2013 at 05:27:44 PM EST
    that GZ explained to officers and paramedics while cuffed in the police car a very short time after the shooting that he was yelling for help and no one came. Does anyone really think GZ is so clever and devious that after suffering a major beating he was planning his defense.

    zimmerman (none / 0) (#39)
    by morphic on Thu Jun 20, 2013 at 07:59:55 PM EST
      One big problem the prosecution has is explaining why, if the multiple witnesses are correct, and the fight started at the T, before moving south, the T being  just seconds from the path where Zimmerman's vehicle was located (if Z was accurate about it's location) why Zimmerman and Martin didn't get any further after roughly four minutes of fleeing and chasing. DD's statement is garbage of course, since she has Martin continuously walking south, until Zimmerman magically catches up to him.It's not easy to defy the laws of nature, but there's an attempt being made.

    Major Beating (none / 0) (#78)
    by IndiDemGirl on Fri Jun 21, 2013 at 04:04:49 PM EST
    is not a fact, but an opinion.

    Did Zimmerman hear this 911 call... (none / 0) (#58)
    by heidelja on Thu Jun 20, 2013 at 11:43:24 PM EST
    ...on the night of Feb 26 when questioned by the SPD?

    Zimmerman Heard 911 Call On 2/29 (none / 0) (#61)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Fri Jun 21, 2013 at 02:02:12 AM EST
    Serino played a recording of W-11's 911 call for Zimmerman in his last interview, on 2/29. Zimmerman's reactions and Serino's comments suggest that he was hearing it for the first time.


    2/29-3, 16:42.


    No one... (1.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Thanin on Thu Jun 20, 2013 at 06:40:06 PM EST
    said anything about faking injuries.  The point was, calling it a "major beating" is hyperbole, given that no stay in the hospital was required.

    Beating not life threatening (none / 0) (#27)
    by woodchuck64 on Thu Jun 20, 2013 at 06:48:43 PM EST
    Yes, and I don't think Zimmerman claims the beating itself was the reason he shot Martin.  He says it was fear that Martin would get the gun first.  In any case, I'm sure it is extremely difficult to make a dispassionate judgement exactly how far your assailant intends to go when you're being pummelled.

    The "major beating" thing... (1.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Thanin on Thu Jun 20, 2013 at 07:12:37 PM EST
    was in response to its use in lily's post.

    there is no requiretment that the (none / 0) (#64)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Jun 21, 2013 at 03:16:13 AM EST
    perceived danger be one that is life-threatening. Serious bodily harm is enough. The judge read the instruction on self defense to the potential jurors today and stressed she was reading it in its entirety to avoid anything being taken out of context. I transcribed it here. Or you can watch the video here (around 7 minutes in.) It follows the standard Florida jury instruction 3.6.

    Right... (1.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Thanin on Fri Jun 21, 2013 at 04:47:00 AM EST
    but my post wasn't commenting on anything directly involving the law, but had to do with a response from another poster to a hyperbolic comment made by a different poster, all of which has since been deleted.

    Tom Owen did testify by video (none / 0) (#2)
    by ding7777 on Thu Jun 20, 2013 at 04:52:33 PM EST
    at least I saw him on video

    thanks, I corrected that (none / 0) (#36)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jun 20, 2013 at 07:41:11 PM EST
    There were reports of him being in town this weekend that either were wrong or he was there and went back home before the hearing. I have not watched today's Frye hearing yet.

    Prosecution p0wned? (none / 0) (#4)
    by rickroberts on Thu Jun 20, 2013 at 05:20:25 PM EST
    From the perspective of this amateur observer, it sure seemed that the prosecution was p0wned in the jury selection. Anyone else see it that way?

    I think the state was hampered (none / 0) (#41)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jun 20, 2013 at 08:06:44 PM EST
    by its cursory, old school way of questioning the jurors. We learned almost nothing about them until O'Mara questioned them today using open ended questions instead of pontificating on the law and then asking "Does anyone agree." See our live thread on the forums for the questions O'Mara asked, which got them to open up in a way the state never did.

    It also doesn't seem like the state did any due diligence or research on the jurors. The list of potential jurors was available to both sides, and the defense made good use of it.

    As to the exercise of peremmptory challenges, I took extensive notes as they occurred, and posted them starting here. It includes the strikes, requests for race and gender neutral explanations, the explanations and the court's ruling for each juror as they occurred.

    I do think the defense was better at challenges, but I have  more to review  before forming an opinion as to whether they got punked.

    In sum, the defense sure got its money worth out of Robert Hirschhorn. He was the master strategist behind the questions asked and strikes made by the defense and the due diligence on the jurors. Coming up with the pastor's sermon, the online contacts between a juror and a witness, the FB entries, etc. took a lot of work. I don't know if the state had an expert who was watching from outside of court, but if they did, it doesn't seem like he or she was on par with Hirschhorn.


    How exactly did 6 & 4 get chosen... (none / 0) (#59)
    by heidelja on Fri Jun 21, 2013 at 12:15:05 AM EST
    ...out of the 40 person pool? I'm surprised there is not a greater spread across the pool.

    cbs has a story ... (none / 0) (#55)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Thu Jun 20, 2013 at 10:14:41 PM EST
    cbsnews has a interview with the defense attn for Anthony, and the attn claims that the jury selected is a big win for the defense.  They also had another story saying that the all females would sympathize with the Martin family . . .

    the attn notes that the state attempted without success to have one or two of the actually chosen jurors to be stricken, and the defense should be happy to have intelligent, educated people evaluating the evidence, esp with 2 who have familiarity with guns.

    In reading over the summaries of the day's events, two things are strange:

    1. the defense struck a pj who is a church administrator in a church that has taken a strong public advocacy position that the case should be of historical significance, and the pj did not disclose her work properly or something to that effect.  The state wanted to keep her and the judge had her struck.  I can't see how the state could have believed it could get away with wanting to keep her, given any misrepresentations she made;
    2. the state successfully struck a pj for cause cause she knew that TM was in school suspension at the time of the shooting.  The defense said that that standard would require nearly every pj to be struck . . . and the state says this is something special . . . and the judge went along with the state.

    To be fair... (none / 0) (#56)
    by Cylinder on Thu Jun 20, 2013 at 11:05:42 PM EST
    To be fair to Mr. de la Rionda (and that's not a trending phrase with me), the state did challenge the pre-emptory challenge and did term the race-neutral explanation as pretext but once the state saw the research O'Mara had on that juror it removed the objection.

    B-86? (none / 0) (#62)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Fri Jun 21, 2013 at 03:07:15 AM EST
    I think you mean the one who was under the misimpression that Trayvon was 'expelled'. One of de la Rionda's concerns was that, since the state didn't want to bring up the suspension at all, they wouldn't be able to correct the misimpression.

    wow... (none / 0) (#11)
    by turbo6 on Thu Jun 20, 2013 at 05:43:58 PM EST
    Totally shocked about the jury. No blacks and no males, never saw that coming.

    I think most of the theories of Martin screaming rely on the notion that Zimmerman approached the situation with his gun drawn.

    Its difficult to envision Martin getting a huge head start on GZ, then remaining stationary long enough for GZ to find him and then Martin realizing he has gun drawn on him, and attempting to close the distance between the two of them, lunging at Zimmerman and somehow not managing to get shot, dominating the fight but still can't get his hands on the gun.

    Regardless, Martin owned the fight. He didn't get his hands on the gun because he was likely shot with it seconds after he became aware of it.

    I'm guessing (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Pugfrench on Thu Jun 20, 2013 at 06:44:27 PM EST
    He didn't really reach for the gun. GZ may have thought he was, or he said that later cause he was scared and thought it sounded better. I doubt TM was trying to suffocate him also. He may have been trying to silence GZ by putting a hand over his mouth and that with the fractured nose made GZ feel like he was smothering him. These kinds of things make GZs story seem more believable to me. They do sound kind of silly so why would he make them up? He was terrified and disoriented and he was confused about some details. It would seem more suspicious if he had an answer for everything.

    zimmerman (none / 0) (#80)
    by morphic on Fri Jun 21, 2013 at 06:33:59 PM EST
       When you're laying on your back, with a nose bleed, you're going to have difficulty breathing.

    Smear (none / 0) (#81)
    by Cylinder on Fri Jun 21, 2013 at 07:14:17 PM EST
    I gave little weight to Zimmerman's claim of smothering until I looked the photo taken of him in Ofc. Smith's patrol car. Zimmerman does seem to have dried blood smeared near his nose and above his lip as if someone had covered his nose and mouth. There could, of course be other explanations, but the marks are there.

    Did the medical exam (none / 0) (#84)
    by NYShooter on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 01:20:29 PM EST
    show any indication of such a smear/blockage? Of course, I don't know if searching for such an item would be part of a standard post altercation exam?

    Not to my knowledge (none / 0) (#86)
    by Cylinder on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 02:46:59 PM EST
    Not to my knowledge. The EMT/Paramedics that treated Zimmerman cleaned him with peroxide to assess the extent of his injuries. Since the smear doesn't show up in the SPD photos, it was cleaned off at some point - Zimmerman's SPD photos were taken before his bathroom visit, IIRC, so I assume the medicos cleaned it off. The smear is well-documented by patrol car photo.

    That sounds good for the defense (none / 0) (#16)
    by Teresa on Thu Jun 20, 2013 at 06:12:49 PM EST
    on the jury. It worries me about what will happen if GZ is found not guilty.

    I know very very little about the specifics of this trial as I said in another thread. My mom had an eventually fatal accident and I was with her 24/7 almost all of last year.

    I only know what I've seen on national media. I didn't know that TM was on top hitting GZ until I read it here and looked up some witness reports. The national media has GZ convicted already. I say that as someone who like I said, knows only what has been on the national media. My brother is in the same boat I am and is 100% sure GZ is a racist murderer.

    I honestly thought he was guilty as hell and now I'm not so sure. I'm not in FL, but I guess I would have made a good juror. I just hope it's a fair trial and the truth comes out whatever it may be.


    Did the judge rule on the voice stuff? (none / 0) (#18)
    by Teresa on Thu Jun 20, 2013 at 06:19:38 PM EST
    Is that a ruling that will take a while and be made after the trial starts? Why are they just now doing it?

    Most legal experts believe (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by NYShooter on Thu Jun 20, 2013 at 07:34:33 PM EST
     the `voice stuff" will come in. However, how much "weight" the jurors should give that testimony, as instructed by the judge, is the key question.

    How does one determine "weight"? (none / 0) (#44)
    by Teresa on Thu Jun 20, 2013 at 08:14:59 PM EST
    The juror can decide whether or not it's just opinion and believe it or not? Like determining how accurate an eyewitness in any trial is? I'm not a lawyer & I don't know how to word what I'm asking. It's not like DNA & factual, just an opinion?

    Where you say how much weight, as instructed by the judge...that can vary in each trial? An expert opinion's weight is determined by each individual judge?

    Sorry for the dumb questions.


    Weight = credibility + substance (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by cboldt on Fri Jun 21, 2013 at 06:23:05 AM EST
    The way I take the word "weight," it is primarily a question of believability of the testimony, taken in context with all the other testimony and any signals the witness gives off answering question.  Evasive witnesses run the risk of being found not as credible, for example.

    Weight is also affected by the importance of the detail being examined.  The color of the holster, for example; or the kind of shoes.  Even if a juror totally doesn't believe the testimony, if the issue involved is unimportant to the decision, then the testimony doesn't get much weight.


    Thank you (none / 0) (#82)
    by Teresa on Fri Jun 21, 2013 at 09:52:32 PM EST
    That makes sense to me. I'm not sure I understand the judge's instruction part NY mentioned. I guess she can explain to them in those instructions that they can weigh the testimony as you described in some legal language.

    Does it harm the prosecution to include it (none / 0) (#46)
    by f2000 on Thu Jun 20, 2013 at 08:17:33 PM EST
    at this point?  Based on how the "experts" fared in the Frye hearing, it seems to me to be counterproductive to the state maintaining overall credibility with the jurors since it is going to be hammered as relentlessly in front of the jury.  Marginal evidence might be useful to a defense that's looking for something for the jury to hang some reasonable doubt on.  The prosecution, which has to have the jury see it's case as credible, presenting this sort of evidence opens up an opportunity for the jury to question the reliability of anything else the state is presenting based on a "if they think this is worth presenting, how low was the bar for their other evidence" rationale.

    Well, (none / 0) (#54)
    by NYShooter on Thu Jun 20, 2013 at 09:29:41 PM EST
    that's one way of looking at it. Since there's very little "hands on," tangible evidence the prosecution, obviously, has to make some "judgment calls," and, take on some risk........,as you pointed out. But, BDLR apparently feels the risk is justified and, that the jury will be able to parse the nuances.  

    Instructions on Weight? (none / 0) (#63)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Fri Jun 21, 2013 at 03:14:48 AM EST
    I don't think the judge instructs the jury on the weight of the evidence. Assessing that is their responsibility as the triers of fact.

    Instructions regarding "weight" (none / 0) (#66)
    by NYShooter on Fri Jun 21, 2013 at 04:21:50 AM EST
    many first time jurors are unfamiliar with the term, weight," what it means, and how to use it. Judge does not tell them how to allocate weight in determining their conclusions.

    Ah, I think I get it now. (none / 0) (#83)
    by Teresa on Fri Jun 21, 2013 at 10:02:37 PM EST
    Source? (none / 0) (#65)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Fri Jun 21, 2013 at 03:16:30 AM EST
    How do you know what most of the experts believe?

    I read (none / 0) (#67)
    by NYShooter on Fri Jun 21, 2013 at 04:25:34 AM EST
    Read What? (none / 0) (#74)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Fri Jun 21, 2013 at 08:43:45 AM EST
    How did you determine the total population of experts, to know that the ones you read were a majority of them?

    No she will rule tomorrow (none / 0) (#47)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jun 20, 2013 at 08:18:03 PM EST
    Not plausible. (none / 0) (#21)
    by woodchuck64 on Thu Jun 20, 2013 at 06:29:23 PM EST
    It's just weird to be on top of a person and in control-- Witness John uses MMA to describe the way Martin was controlling the encounter (he indicated uncertainty about punching)-- and simultaneously be screaming for your life.

    If Zimmerman is on top, yes, I can see Martin begging for his life.   But Witness John saw Martin on top while the yelling was going on:

    I'm getting the impression most theories that have Martin begging for his life also have Witness John in cahoots with Zimmerman.

    That suggests Zimmerman is the one screaming, (none / 0) (#24)
    by woodchuck64 on Thu Jun 20, 2013 at 06:40:39 PM EST
    and once his hand is free he stops screaming, grabs the gun and shoots all in a fraction of a second.  Actually that sounds pretty close to Zimmerman's account, it all comes down to whether he thought he was safe and it was time for a little revenge, or if he thought he was about to lose the gun to Martin and it was now or never.

    You could really spin this case either way.... (none / 0) (#30)
    by redwolf on Thu Jun 20, 2013 at 07:29:51 PM EST
    Based on who's side your on.  The problem for the prosecution is Zimmerman's story.  It fits all the evidence that I know of and he is the only living eye witness.

    Zimmerman also really doesn't have a motive to kill Martin. The racism angle was pretty much killed as he didn't identify Martin as black until asked by the operator and even then he wasn't sure. Zimmerman wasn't there to kill or rape Martin and he knew the cops were on the way.  So if he's a murder, what was his motivation?  I've yet to hear a single compelling motivation why this is a murder case.


    Correction (none / 0) (#32)
    by redwolf on Thu Jun 20, 2013 at 07:31:36 PM EST
    Kill should be Rob

    Sides (none / 0) (#43)
    by woodchuck64 on Thu Jun 20, 2013 at 08:11:03 PM EST
    It is sad that there have to be sides.  Martin had parents who cared enough to discipline him and I can't help but think he would have turned out fine if he had made it past those difficult teenage years.  I've got nothing but sympathy for his parents and what happened.  Some I'm on their side.

    I'm completely unsympathetic to gun laws that allow psychologically untrained people to carry weapons.  The ability to deal death on a whim should be an exceedingly rare ability for exceedingly well trained individuals.  Not Zimmerman.  

    But I believe Zimmerman's account.  He's a man who legally killed someone thinking he was about to killed.  He didn't break any laws but he'll suffer the regret of killing an unarmed teenager for the rest of his life.  I'm on his side.


    Frustration - hero complex (none / 0) (#71)
    by cboldt on Fri Jun 21, 2013 at 06:28:58 AM EST
    The prosecution invites people to jump to the conclusion that Zimmerman was frustrated that the people burglarizing and otherwise committing criminal acts in the neighborhood always get away.  The prosecution also invites a leap to the conclusion that Zimmerman's rejection as a police officer play, in his mind, as a reason to demonstrate his suitability for police work, in particular at apprehension of suspects.

    This produces motive to apprehend Martin.  Then, "a struggle ensued," and Zimmerman is unwilling to lose that struggle and lose the apprehension.  While Martin is screaming for help, Zimmerman decides to settle the apprehension and bag the suspect before the police arrive.


    screaming (2.33 / 3) (#77)
    by friendofinnocence on Fri Jun 21, 2013 at 10:53:02 AM EST
    I wonder if Winston Moseley ever said it was him screaming, not Kitty Genovese.

    Well, that's (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Zorba on Fri Jun 21, 2013 at 04:15:25 PM EST
    an extremely inappropriate and off-topic stretch.

    Why discount witness? (none / 0) (#33)
    by woodchuck64 on Thu Jun 20, 2013 at 07:32:51 PM EST
    "I didn't know that TM was on top hitting GZ," is not proven fact at this time (witness statements conflict, while some have recanted.)

    Witness 6 is not sure about punching, but he's also not sure about NOT punching.  Further, he's quite sure Martin was on top controlling the fight.  

    I'm aware witness statements are not proven fact but is there some reason to doubt these statements?

    Did not recant MMA-style control (none / 0) (#35)
    by woodchuck64 on Thu Jun 20, 2013 at 07:37:56 PM EST
    See the link.  He did indicate that he's no longer sure he actually saw MMA-style punching.  But he still affirms MMA-style control.  He said that he's now not sure if there was punching or not; that's the way I read it.  

    I never said Witness John affirmed any hitting, just Martin's position of control on top.

    I deleted that comment (none / 0) (#45)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jun 20, 2013 at 08:15:08 PM EST
    It contained inaccurate statements.  The differences in statements are outlined here .

    Please keep this thread to jury selection. If you'd like to discuss the evidence in detail, send me a request to be added to the forums.


    should be jury selection and frye hearing (none / 0) (#52)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jun 20, 2013 at 08:45:41 PM EST
    On top? (none / 0) (#37)
    by Raoul on Thu Jun 20, 2013 at 07:52:53 PM EST
    "witness statements conflict"

    There are no witnesses I am aware of that have GZ on top before the shot. Cutcher saw GZ on top, but that was after the shot, consistent with GZ's statements.

    Can you stick to jury selection here please? (none / 0) (#42)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jun 20, 2013 at 08:07:56 PM EST
    This thread is not about your views of what may or may not be the evidence.

    the Frye Hearing is also (none / 0) (#51)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jun 20, 2013 at 08:45:07 PM EST
    on topic.

    zimmerman (none / 0) (#48)
    by morphic on Thu Jun 20, 2013 at 08:21:40 PM EST
        I think there's verifiable evidence that Zimmerman did stop when Sean suggested he  do so. Without even knowing the sound had been captured on the dispatcher call, Zimmerman said his flashlight wasn't working, and after the wind sound stopped, you can hear a clanging sound. Zimmerman claimed he was tapping his main flashlight on something. Serino said the flashlight was working, and perhaps it did start working again, but you have to wonder why the other lit flashlight was at the T, where witnesses said the confrontation started. It's easy enough to conclude that Zimmerman was standing in one place, (no wind noise), and actually was tapping the flashlight on something (clanging noise). This would certainly help to explain why witnesses claim the confrontation begin at the T and not about half a mile away, considering the time frame, if they both kept moving south.

    Please stay on topic (none / 0) (#49)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jun 20, 2013 at 08:40:43 PM EST
    of the jury selection and read our commenting rules for commenting on this case. Comments misstating the known or disclosed facts/evidence will be deleted. This site is not going to be used to spread false information and baseless theories of guilt.

    make that jury selection and frye (none / 0) (#53)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jun 20, 2013 at 08:46:23 PM EST
    Jury selection is part luck, part skill (none / 0) (#57)
    by Payaso on Thu Jun 20, 2013 at 11:32:03 PM EST
    Attorney's often revert to stereotypes in judging people by their age, sex and appearance.  Each side has an idea of what their ideal juror will be like.

    This may end up being the most effective use of jury experts since the first OJ trial.

    The Jury selection was sold on TV News (none / 0) (#69)
    by TeresaInPa on Fri Jun 21, 2013 at 06:12:18 AM EST
    yesterday as what both sides wanted. I admit I don't really get why both sides think they got their perfect jury. Can someone explain?

    It's called (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by jbindc on Fri Jun 21, 2013 at 06:53:08 AM EST

    As mentioned, spin. (none / 0) (#73)
    by leftwig on Fri Jun 21, 2013 at 08:04:58 AM EST
    I don't think either side got a perfect jury, but I think you'd have to say advantage defense.  They weeded out at least some jurors that were being stealth (or flat out lying) about their knowledge and activities.  ITs possible others slipped through and are on the jury and we'll find out later, but it seems they got a "fair" jury.  The prosecution challenged quite a few more jurors and 2 of their challenges were denied which means 1/3 of the primary jury is made up of jurors the prosecution didn't want.  

    Getting all women is probably not what the defense had in mind, but I think you'd have to say the defense got a pretty fair deal.


    zimmerman (none / 0) (#75)
    by morphic on Fri Jun 21, 2013 at 09:04:29 AM EST
       At least a jury that will listen to the evidence, without tunnel vision.

    Also, (none / 0) (#85)
    by NYShooter on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 01:25:22 PM EST
     the "no AA's thing" must have had the acquiescence of the Prosecution.

    Interesting stuff. A lot of counter-intuitive choices.


    The Prosecution In Jury Selection (none / 0) (#87)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 11:12:32 PM EST
    The prosecution removed a black candidate themselves, before the defense did.

    I've seen a number of attorneys say that it's important to look at each juror, rather than be lazy and rely on stereotypes. One of them is Jose Baez, who won an impressive victory in the Casey Anthony case.


    Six jurors (none / 0) (#76)
    by friendofinnocence on Fri Jun 21, 2013 at 10:42:54 AM EST
    The nice thing about 6 jurors is if there is one holdout for "not guilty", there will only be five people trying to change his or her mind instead of eleven.