George Zimmerman: Jury Begins Deliberations

I haven't seen John Guy's rebuttal closing yet in the George Zimmerman trial, but from the reactions online, it seems he didn't play tricks with the evidence as I predicted, he just pulled out the race, gender and emotion cards. Maybe he couldn't find any evidentiary rabbits.

In any event, the jury has been instructed and is now deliberating. Since it hasn't been mentioned in a while, I just want to point out that if this jury acquits George Zimmerman, the credit begins with jury consultant Robert Hirschhorn.

Regardless of what the verdict is, I think all criminal defense lawyers can take great pride in Mark O'Mara and Don West. They represent the tireless, dedicated, fearless advocates we all aspire to be. O'Mara and West have displayed the utmost integrity throughout this difficult case. They also worked for 16 months without yet receiving a dime (all the money raised so far has gone to case expenses, experts, and Zimmerman's living expenses and security.)

As I wind down 16 months of intensive coverage of this case, I'd like to thank the readers who have contributed to the discussion here and at our forums. As news articles are gradually pulled offline and the media deletes its document archives, the forums in particular will serve as a historical account of the evidence and court proceedings, and the political and partisan pressures and media hype that elevated this case into feeding frenzy.

I'd also like to thank Jim Talent of National Review and Bob Somerby of the Daily Howler for featuring my recent post with thoughts on the legacy of this case, and Eric Zorn of the Chicago Tribune, who recognized that the injustice in this case went far beyond the guilt or innocence of George Zimmerman, for his frequent citing of our coverage, as well as law professor Ann Althouse.

< Zimmerman Trial: Defense Closing | Friday Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Jeralyn (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Slado on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 04:27:31 PM EST
    I come to this site specifically because of your views on the law and criminal defense.  You explain things in a way that I can understand and you've opened my eyes to the real issues that exist in our criminal justice system.

    I was more then pleased to run across your thoughts on National Review as anyone no matter there political beliefs can appreciate well thought out and honest opinions.

    I constantly recommend your site to my friends.  

    Well done.

    Jeralyn... Thank YOU!!! (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Cashmere on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 04:55:16 PM EST
    Thank you very much for this site!  I have learned so much about "law", thanks to you and all of the amazing posters that follow you.

    I still don't get... (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Thanin on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 04:57:54 PM EST
    Why GZ called TM a f***g punk.  What about TM justified that?

    Have you (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by jbindc on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 05:03:18 PM EST
    ever called someone who cut you off in traffic  or pushed you in a crowd an "a$$hole"? (or worse)?

    Were you justified in doing that?


    That's a terrible example, unless you can (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Anne on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 05:14:19 PM EST
    demonstrate what it was TM did or was doing at the time the comment was made that justified him making it.

    TM walked toward GZs car (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Jack203 on Sat Jul 13, 2013 at 09:11:34 AM EST
    staring at GZ feigning he had something in his waist.  This was described by GZ in detail to the NEN operator while it was happening.

    There was definite fear in GZs voice when he was begging police to come as soon as possible.

    Unless your conspiracy reaches GZ lying to NEN before the assault, this is not disputed.


    Has the pro-prosecution (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Jack203 on Sat Jul 13, 2013 at 09:32:12 AM EST
    listened to the NEN besides the effing punks and assholes get away?  

    Why did GZ consider TM one of the effing punks?
    It began with them staring at each other.  Please listen again when TM heads directly towards GZ's car staring at him and feigning a weapon in his waist band.  

    I would consider anyone that does this a punk and an a$shole too.  And no, I would not want to murder them.  The leap from considering someone an as$hole of punk to wanting to murder them is a quantum leap.


    You're assuming TM... (none / 0) (#94)
    by Thanin on Sat Jul 13, 2013 at 10:35:10 AM EST
    was intentionally "feigning" a weapon in his hand.  You have no proof of that.

    I have no proof you're not an alien either (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Jack203 on Sat Jul 13, 2013 at 01:33:18 PM EST
    Way to dismiss the evidence when it doesn't conform to your beliefs though.

    You have two options.

    1 - George was intentionally lying to NEN during the actual call.
    (Why would he possibly do this?)

    2 - George mistook TM heading directly towards his car feigning he had something in his waistband.
    (This is most likely what the close minded will put their money in believing.  Every time the evidence doesn't fit their narrative, they twist their logic in circles so it does.  George is an idiot.  George is a racist.  Assholes, Effing Punks, profile, police told him not to get out of his car)

    The pro-lynch mob only knows and understands 5% of this case.  They completely ignore the other 95% of exculpatory evidence.


    So to be clear (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Jack203 on Sat Jul 13, 2013 at 01:39:56 PM EST
    When GZ is talking to dispatch and there is definite fear in his voice describing how TM is  heading directly towards him car feigning something is in his waist band, and that GZ begs to have police come immediately.

    It is your position that George is just an idiot racist and TM was just calmly walking along?

    Or do you try not to think of this part to focus 100%  on the a$$holes and effing punks part (the prosecutions whole case).


    It's not what a reasonable person would assume... (1.00 / 0) (#101)
    by Thanin on Sat Jul 13, 2013 at 07:38:44 PM EST
    IMO.  You may have looked at TM and been scared and thought he was going to shoot you.  I wouldn't have.

    You assume (4.00 / 3) (#12)
    by jbindc on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 05:17:23 PM EST
    GZ was talking about TM specifically or was using it in the general sense.

    GZ could pass TM in church and say "f#@$ing punks".  He doesn't need justification to express an opinion out of frustration or anything.


    Oh, give me a break...there was no (4.25 / 4) (#14)
    by Anne on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 05:21:21 PM EST
    one else around, he was on the phone with NE dispatcher specifically because of his suspicions about TM, so please don't insult people's intelligence by suggesting this was some kind of general aside.

    he said effing PUNKS...-plural (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by TeresaInPa on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 06:01:44 PM EST
    he obviously was speaking in general.  Simple reading comprehension tell us all that.  "Effing punkS always get away".... frustrated because there had been a lot of crime and the punkS had all gotten away at that point and he thought this might be another one.  

    That seems to be lost on some people. (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by jbindc on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 06:02:41 PM EST
    But that... (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by Thanin on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 06:19:43 PM EST
    confirms GZ was referencing TM, just generalizing him, which still goes to my question of why TM would need to be categorized as one of the f**g punks.  Or ah**, as he did, perhaps, again, in a generalized way.

    I'm just asking what about TM makes him use those words to describe him.


    Zimmerman suspected he was a burglar (5.00 / 3) (#60)
    by cboldt on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 06:38:14 PM EST
    That's what.  His neighbor had just experienced a home invasion, and Taffee had been been broken into, and Martin was hanging out in Taffee's yard.

    It's personal animus against burglars and "hot burglars" (aka home invaders, somebody is home for the breakin).


    "Hanging out in Taffee's yard"?!? (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by Yman on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 09:09:39 PM EST
    Where's the evidence of that?  Did that slip his mind while he was describing Martin to the dispatcher?

    Ok... (none / 0) (#79)
    by Thanin on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 08:26:09 PM EST
    so GZ saw this kid and assumed he was a burglar.  I understand...

    At this point I suppose it's moot.  GZ will probably be acquitted or it will be a hung jury.


    you are just stirring (2.75 / 4) (#58)
    by TeresaInPa on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 06:30:16 PM EST
    sh*t up.  Enough games, move on. Your question has been answered.

    By your response... (5.00 / 3) (#59)
    by Thanin on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 06:34:26 PM EST
    It's obvious you've stirred yourself up.  I'm asking an actual, legitimate question.

    Deliberately Obtuse (5.00 / 3) (#78)
    by vicndabx on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 08:23:37 PM EST
    what gets lost on people is there was no reason for GZ to say that at all in any context w/r/t TM.  

    Please explain how that statement is at all relevant to TM at the time it was made?

    I'll wait......


    Give me a break (3.50 / 4) (#19)
    by jbindc on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 05:30:08 PM EST
    You want SOOOOO badly to assume he had hatred and menance in his heart, when, as I've pointed out in a perfectly good example, people call names all the time when they are frustrated. He was suspicious - so what? Suspicious people aren't allowed to call names?
    And if he meant ill-will, don't you think he knew he was being recorded?

    Jeezus, for someone who laments how much she hates the "cesspool" of the Zimmerman threads, you sure do pop in here a lot.


    Gosh, and why would GZ (4.00 / 3) (#33)
    by observed on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 05:51:51 PM EST
    have any reason to feel frustrated about a boy walking home to his parents?
    Whatever the legal niceties of the case,
    I agree with Josh Marshall's take:
    If you're a wannabe cop loser with a gun who starts stalking a kid in the dark, you're responsible for the outcome.

    I know that sounds harsh or flippant. But I really do feel like this is what the whole case comes down to.

    Armed vigilantes are a menace to society. Period.


    It is really a pity (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by TeresaInPa on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 06:23:01 PM EST
    here you are on this site where you hang out often and you have the advantage of reading the opinions based on knowledge of law of not just Jeralyn but many other lawyers Armando included.  So what do you chose to think?  You chose to think what the liberal blogmasters have decided you should think.

      You know, don't you, that they all read from the same script, jumped on the same "IT'S ALL ABOUT RACISM" bandwagon and are so painfully elitist.  "a wannabe cop loser with a gun", that is so hatefully elitist.  How can you justify talking that way about someone?

     Did you watch the defense closing today?  Did you hear about the car with the lights and the uniform etc... that Zimmerman turned down?  The whole hateful wannabe cop BS was turned on it's head.
    But that is beside the point.

     The point is that you have the choice to listen to people who know what they are talking about or to follow people like Marshall who don't know what they think until they read their opinion on someone else's blog and this is the choice you have made?  I don't get it.


    we agree on one thing: (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by obsessed on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 07:41:31 PM EST
    "the injustice in this case went far beyond the guilt or innocence of George Zimmerman"

    For one (none / 0) (#35)
    by jbindc on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 05:54:34 PM EST
    nothing Josh Marshall wrote is true.

    But besides that....


    Whether it is true is a subject for debate. (4.00 / 3) (#37)
    by observed on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 05:56:53 PM EST
    It is undeniably true that if an armed vigilante hadn't been prowling the streets, TM wouldn't have died.

    Sigh (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by jbindc on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 05:57:42 PM EST
    Not THIS again.

    So far into the weeds you can't see (3.50 / 2) (#41)
    by observed on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 06:00:17 PM EST
    the big picture.

    Nope (none / 0) (#43)
    by jbindc on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 06:02:16 PM EST
    Just tired of weeding through false statements and lies, which Jeralyn has said time and again she doesn't want here.

    Right, tendentious pro-defense (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by observed on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 06:03:12 PM EST
    speculation is in order, as usual.

    Or (none / 0) (#48)
    by jbindc on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 06:05:47 PM EST
    Just what, you know, the actual EVIDENCE shows, unlike yours and Josh Marshall's statements, which are SPIN with no evidence to back them up.

    Please. (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by observed on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 06:10:06 PM EST
    Jeralyn will allow any speculation, as long at it tends to favor the defendant. This is part of what defense attorneys do, and I understand it. It's not, however, about getting to the truth.
    This is my last comment.
    I'm glad the trial is over.
    I hope I never hear about the f*cking vigilante, serial liar but possibly innocent of a crime, punk GZ again.

    Is the Zimmerman trial flooding the KZ media? (none / 0) (#52)
    by oculus on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 06:13:33 PM EST
    I'm in the US currently (none / 0) (#75)
    by observed on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 08:03:40 PM EST
    That explains it! (none / 0) (#76)
    by oculus on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 08:20:52 PM EST
    where's the falsity in the statement? (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by obsessed on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 07:55:43 PM EST
    observed says: "It is undeniably true that if an armed vigilante hadn't been prowling the streets, TM wouldn't have died."

    jbindc says that this is a false statement

    To me, aside from nitpicking about the technical definition of "vigilante", this statement is indeed undeniably true. You guys seem to think it's valiant to protect the "rights" of people untrained in and grossly unsuited for law enforcement to run around stirring up lethal conflicts. For your sakes I hope you're lucky enough not to encounter the virtuous Officer Zimmerman on the street after you get your way and he's freed to repeat his ... errr ... "legal" actions.


    Nota terrible example (3.50 / 2) (#84)
    by Darby on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 10:29:51 PM EST
    Does swearing at someone who pisses you off by cutting you off mean you have ill will or are of depraved mind?  In thi example the person actually did do something wrong so it makes an even stronger example

    It would if I then proceeded.... (none / 0) (#96)
    by magster on Sat Jul 13, 2013 at 11:02:07 AM EST
    to call 911 to share my opinion, follow him and then shoot him. Otherwise its just me in my car yelling at the a**hole who cut me off. End of story.

    Yes. and yes. (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by magster on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 05:54:38 PM EST
    and not really applicable to this case.

    Neither is (2.00 / 1) (#40)
    by jbindc on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 05:58:44 PM EST
    assuming GZ called TM a F@#$ing punk. (Which is not exactly what he said).

    Punks (Plural) (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 05:05:14 PM EST
    And from what I have read, it is common for law and order types to use this language to describe a group they believe are petty thieves.

    I am not suggesting that Zimmerman was correct in his assumption, just giving you an answer to your question.  


    Common in many venues (3.50 / 2) (#10)
    by cboldt on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 05:13:07 PM EST
    It's how I refer to Democrats.

    NO!!! I like you (none / 0) (#21)
    by Teresa on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 05:35:11 PM EST
    Don't tell me you're a Republican! :)

    Didn't O'Mara ask Serino or one of them if in cop language they sometimes refer to criminal types in those terms? Maybe it was a talking head, but I thought he asked that.


    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 05:38:22 PM EST
    I think, if I remember correctly it was common language on the 911 or NEN calls.

    I'm apolitical (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by cboldt on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 05:41:10 PM EST
    Glad you caught the joke though.

    I know I shouldn't stir the pot here, just couldn't resist.  Probably a moment of beer.


    Ah, we put up with all kinds here. (none / 0) (#30)
    by Teresa on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 05:47:03 PM EST
    I think many of us hardcore Democrats are disillusioned somewhat. Maybe I shouldn't speak for everyone, but I was away a while and it seems like that to me.

    I hope you stick around. I wouldn't be shocked at a hung jury and we get to do this again.

    That female lawyer who comments on local Fox down there and on Greta (I don't watch that so I haven't seen her there) is the best twitter follow on this case imo. She thinks it's obvious reasonable doubt and it's kind of scary for the defense that they recessed.

    I think they'll carefully go over the evidence to be sure because I think they know the significance their decision can have.


    I have narrow interests (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by cboldt on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 06:02:27 PM EST
    I've been here before, on the Scooter Libby thing.  But I'm to the right of Barry Goldwater, and Democrats and I just don't get along - with a few exceptions.  bmaz and I sort of know each other, and like each other.  Jeralyn and I have swapped substantive material and argument many times, I like her too, alot.

    But, I also don't like Republicans in general.

    As far as following news, I use the press just to get a framework, then I review source documents.  The press is never correct on the substantive stuff, and I prefer to form my opinions without help from idiots.  I won't follow the press on this case tonight, at all, for example.  My teevee is on TCM or baseball.

    I can't predict what case will catch my interest in the next few years, or whether I will ever again make an appearance at TalkLeft.  I flit around at my own whim.  Like everybody else, I form opinions as to frequently appearing handles.  I endeavor to be a positive presence, and I (usually) avoid all interaction with people I feel are unreasonable.

    Sorry to ramble.  Long way of saying thanks for the kind thoughts.


    To the right of Goldwater? (none / 0) (#81)
    by Thanin on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 09:00:06 PM EST
    That makes me think of anti-gay rights/sexism is a myth/climate change denier type of positions.

    Why the Zimmerman case (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by cboldt on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 06:20:00 PM EST
    The Zimmerman case got my interest early on, I think because the disconnect between the evidence and the press accounts was so stark.  I honestly thought Corey would no bill.  When she didn't, well, my interest went up instead of down.

    I'm probably more peaceful than kdog, but I go armed.  You will NEVER find me uttering a harsh word, or a frown.  So, right or wrong, I felt and feel some sympathy toward Zimmerman.

    I'm also distrustful of a system that ought to be trusted - so following an aberration of a case feeds my cynicism.

    At rock bottom, I'm a bit of an idealist who values basic honesty.  I test cases that get my interest by digging into the law, evidence, precedents, and I make up my own mind.  It is guaranteed that somebody will disagree with my opinions and conclusions.  But I get to my beliefs without any help from pundits.

    Corey and de la Rionda are, in my eyes, the equivalent of a car wreck.  Something went fundamentally wrong.  All the more disturbing to see more than one judge going along with it.  And so, I'm drawn to it, just for the gore.


    Yep. That quick NG verdict didn't happen. (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by oculus on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 06:23:51 PM EST
    From what I have read it is common??? (none / 0) (#9)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 05:11:39 PM EST
    Really?? Got some facts to go with that opinion?

    And what is your purpose??

    Wait! I know. You want to use it to prove that GZ was a wannabe....


    Dictionary For One (none / 0) (#13)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 05:20:27 PM EST
    a. A young person, especially a member of a rebellious counterculture group.
    b. An inexperienced young man.

    And f'ing as a modifier to punks is usually used by those who are angry or typical tough guy language aka law and order types.

    Or bedwetters who are wannabe tough guys, as a front.


    GZ is the same age group (none / 0) (#68)
    by TeresaInPa on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 07:38:18 PM EST
    as my sons.  They have some friends who use effing pretty much every other word in a sentence and they aren't the least bit angry.

    OK (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by squeaky on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 08:21:32 PM EST
    Do they use the modifier before punks as a matter of course?

    Apparently you misunderstood..  f'ing is only the modifier... used to modify punks it most often is an angry statement.

    But, hey your friends may be different and f"ing punks is a term of endearment.


    Profanity is not murder (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Payaso on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 05:40:50 PM EST
    It's not even proof of malice or ill will.

    Who says he was referring to Martin? (4.00 / 3) (#8)
    by cboldt on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 05:09:35 PM EST
    You make the contention that it a personal reference, back it up with evidence.

    I just listened... (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by Thanin on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 06:09:54 PM EST
    to the 911 call.  If he wasn't referencing TM -- during a 911 specifically about TM -- at that moment, then GZ is delusional and makes arbitrary, nonsensical references during, as it turns out, life-altering phone calls.

    Because his entire conversation ... (5.00 / 4) (#83)
    by Yman on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 09:25:22 PM EST
    ... was about Martin.  Because immediately after the dispatcher asks Zimmerman to let him know if Martin did anything else, Zimmerman's response was, "These a$$holes, they always get away."  Because as Zimmerman is describing Martin's actions and says "$hit, he's running" (leaving his vehicle to follow Martin), and the dispatcher asks which entrance he's running toward, Zimmerman says, "The back entrance.  Fu@king punks."

    So, yeah ... unless Zimmerman suddenly had a severe mental tangent and began discussing a group that had nothing to do with Martin (the subject of his conversation with the dispatcher), or he was assuming that Martin was one of that larger group of criminals (aka "@$$holes" who "always get away", "fu@king punks") and was referring to Martin as part of that group.


    F-ing punks and @zzholes (2.25 / 4) (#85)
    by Char Char Binks on Sat Jul 13, 2013 at 12:29:07 AM EST
    is truly shocking language!  I haven't heard filth like that since the latest PG-13 Disney movie.

    Then why'd you make such a big deal (5.00 / 4) (#89)
    by Anne on Sat Jul 13, 2013 at 07:59:31 AM EST
    out of "creepy-a$$ cracker?"

    Seems your sensibilities are rather fluid.


    Creepy-ass cracker (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Char Char Binks on Sat Jul 13, 2013 at 07:08:16 PM EST
    is a racist and dehumanizing term of contempt that TM used (if indeed he used it) to justify beating GZ.

    You just make me laugh... (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by Anne on Sat Jul 13, 2013 at 07:23:14 PM EST
    TM allegedly said something that you've decided was his justification for beating GZ, but GZ's "fking punks" was just some general expression of frustration and had nothing to do with his actions that night.

    Yeah, that makes sense.

    Just like poor George couldn't figure out where he was after living there for four years, but TM was 100% oriented to his location.

    I wish you could see the gaping holes in your logic, but I guess that's hard to do with blinders on.


    Punks (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by Char Char Binks on Sat Jul 13, 2013 at 10:54:27 PM EST
    is plural, and wasn't directed solely at TM (if that is even what he said, it's still too hard to tell for sure from the recording).  Some have opined that GZ had an advantage in living there for four years, because he knew  the short cuts to intercept TM.  The problem with that is he lost sight of TM for minutes, didn't know where he was going, and there was no "short cut" shorter than the bee line TM had to his apartment.

    punks (none / 0) (#18)
    by morphic on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 05:29:15 PM EST
    not punk. Usually when someone runs away, they're up to no good. Have you considered the possibility that Trayvon Martin, who was busy looking around, never saw George Zimmerman's parked truck. If Zimmerman had turned off the lights, Trayvon might not have known Zimmerman was even in it, until he came up to the vehicle, and saw someone with a cellphone.

    He didn't (none / 0) (#47)
    by TeresaInPa on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 06:03:58 PM EST
    he said "effing punkS...." TM is only one person.  GZ was referring to young guys in general who were doing break ins and getting away.

    So if, in this comment, I said (5.00 / 4) (#90)
    by Anne on Sat Jul 13, 2013 at 08:04:44 AM EST
    "fking idiot," I could just say I was referring to people in general who were making nonsensical comments and not one person in particular.  It would just be, I don't know, random and coincidental that it appeared after something you wrote.

    This is good to know - wish I'd known it sooner, it would have come in very handy.

    But hey - thanks to you and all the rest of those who've made this argument!

    Just dazzled by your brilliance, truly.


    What justifies suggesting... (none / 0) (#86)
    by heidelja on Sat Jul 13, 2013 at 05:45:14 AM EST
    ..."f***g punk" applied literally to TM? GZ did not know TM so one shouldn't conjure up it applied to TM personally. It was an abstract reference to an abstract person seen as suspicious made by one who likely did not know his call was being recorded. Put it context of the 6-7 previous calls and the occupied home burglary and the timing of the surprising event on the evening of Sunday, Feb 26, 2012, it should be obvious to most it was made out of frustration not out of personal hate. But typically one's weakness under stress goes used as another's justification for their reasoning of ill will he "certainly" harbored for another given the unintended consequences.

    I never knew NEN calls were recorded. Why should they be treated the same as 911 calls?


    Recessing for the night (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Teresa on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 05:03:15 PM EST

    What time was the case given to the jury? (none / 0) (#22)
    by oculus on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 05:37:02 PM EST
    I think I read somewhere ~2:30 EST. (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 05:38:45 PM EST
    Any idea why O'Mara did closing argument as (none / 0) (#26)
    by oculus on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 05:40:31 PM EST
    to West?

    He's the main lawyer. Most (none / 0) (#29)
    by Teresa on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 05:41:41 PM EST
    were surprised that West did the opening. West is more the technical evidence guy - DNA, stuff like that.

    Reminder (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 05:21:46 PM EST
    There is a kid named Trayvon Martin and he is dead.

    How many young black men not named Trayvon (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Payaso on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 05:38:30 PM EST
    How many young black men not named Trayvon Martin have died violently since February 26th 2012?

    Are you concerned about justice for each one of them?


    Oh come on. How many of their known killers (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by ruffian on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 05:50:25 PM EST
    walk around free for weeks?

    probably many of them (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by TeresaInPa on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 06:41:27 PM EST
    but no one cares because their are killed by other black guys. No story there, it's the norm.

    you're not? (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by obsessed on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 07:57:35 PM EST
    "How many young black men not named Trayvon Martin have died violently since February 26th 2012?
    Are you concerned about justice for each one of them?"

    Uh ... you're not?


    That's true (2.00 / 1) (#16)
    by ZucchiTadre on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 05:27:02 PM EST
    but this trial is not about Trayvon.. it's about George Zimmerman. The jury is now faced with the decision to decide George Zimmerman's guilt or innocence... who Trayvon was is beside the point IMHO.  

    It's about both of them (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by cboldt on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 05:28:33 PM EST
    Zimmerman can't be justified in using deadly force against Martin, unless Martin is doing something that is considered unsavory in civilized circles.

    Re: post on the other thread about (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by ruffian on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 06:07:24 PM EST
    jurors not being able to share their notes with one another.  They can use their own notes to inform the opinions they express, but their notes are not evidence. Another thing I did not know until deliberating is that they are not allowed to discuss the case at all unless all are present. So if one goes to the bathroom, all deliberation must cease.

    These are rules that really made me appreciate our system even more. They protect against some jurors having information or the benefits of the opinions that all do not have.

    What an awesome experience. (none / 0) (#53)
    by Teresa on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 06:18:59 PM EST
    I got called for the second time in 3 years for last Sept, Oct and Nov. My mom's Dr wrote a letter for me that I couldn't leave her.

    They were having a retrial on one of the most horrible vicious crimes in Knoxville history. It would have been my luck to get that one. Talk about heartbreaking. Found guilty already (there were 4 of them), but it turned out the very respected judge was on drugs! Even buying pills from former defendants in his court. Huge scandal here.

    This is the tragic case that made national news, and was considered whether or not to charge as a hate crime by the gov't.

    Christian and Newsome (short wiki)


    Ugh, how horrible. (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by ruffian on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 07:09:18 PM EST
    That would have been grueling. Even my relatively simple lawsuit was hard enough.

    Back in 1984 or so I did have the same kind of experience you had the other time where you got picked then there was no trial. Mine was a murder case too, and the defendant decided before trial started to try the case before the judge instead of the jury. Judge found him guilty. I didn't even know that was possible at the time! It was an interesting one - 3 guys in a little alleged drug ring go up in a private plane over Catalina...2 guys return. 1 guy turned informant, 1 on trial.  We got asked lots of questions on voir dire about if we could objectively judge the testimony of an informant.

    Anyway, I thought jury duty was a good experience over all. Certainly got to see a different walk of life at the courtroom, see the judge and lawyers at work. It was all fascinating to me, obviously, since I am a regular here!

    Hardes thing is not talking about the case for all that time. I'm sure the first hour this jury spent in the room was just reacting to all of the things they had not been able to talk about before.


    When my daughter was on a civil jury, (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by oculus on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 07:17:41 PM EST
    they discussed the attorneys.

    Yeah we did that in a general way too (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by ruffian on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 07:20:16 PM EST
    One looked just like Harry Reid, so we had to discuss that!

    So here is the obit for the judge in (none / 0) (#65)
    by ruffian on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 07:23:46 PM EST
    California. Judge McCartin  Seems he died last year. Oculus, did you know him? Looks like he did not sentence the guy in my almost-trial to death anyway.

    No. It is interesting he was appointed (none / 0) (#66)
    by oculus on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 07:28:54 PM EST
    by Jerry Brown.  

    Yes. That judge had quite a personality (none / 0) (#70)
    by ruffian on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 07:41:05 PM EST
    Brown must have thought he was fair, though conservative. I remember him vey clearly after all this time and only the few days of jury selection. One of those fatherly, twinkly-eye types, but tough, no doubt.

    Off topic I know (none / 0) (#67)
    by ruffian on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 07:35:21 PM EST
    But I love google.

    Here is that case. The defendant got a new trial after McCartin found him guilty - appeals court found the confession of the informant to be coerced.


    Cowell's first trial was conducted before Judge Donald A. McCartin without a jury. His lawyers feared that a jury trial would result in a sentence of life without parole, which DiMascio eventually received. Cowell's lawyers had learned from the judge at a pretrial hearing that McCartin would give Cowell the 25-year sentence.

    At Cowell's second trial last December, jurors took less than a day and a half to reach a verdict, unusually short in a murder case, where five to six days of deliberations is more common.

    or rather, his own confession to be coerced (none / 0) (#69)
    by ruffian on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 07:38:26 PM EST
    Ruffian... (none / 0) (#95)
    by Teresa on Sat Jul 13, 2013 at 10:45:30 AM EST
    jurors took less than a day and a half to reach a verdict, unusually short in a murder case, where five to six days of deliberations is more common.

    Five to six days? I wonder if that's just the norm in California?

    I've read that the jurors in Casey Anthony's case took so much grief that these jurors will be very very careful. We may have a long wait.

    Even thinking as I do, I'd still go over the evidence again. It's so easy to miss something important.


    Knoxville--Cormac McCarthy country (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by MKS on Sat Jul 13, 2013 at 08:40:10 AM EST
    A blog of some depth (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by casualobserver on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 07:47:44 PM EST
    I found this blog through references made to it on the JOM blog....and I am glad I did (especially since Tom has lost some of his earlier daily interest in this matter.)

    I prefer to dig deep into a particular event as opposed to constantly jumping from one subject to another like most blogs that throw up 10-15 topics a day. All that generates is drive-by commentary based on personal biases.

    I learned quite a bit of crim proc following this case as presented and commented upon here.

    Thanks to both author and audiences.

    O'Mara interview coming up on (none / 0) (#2)
    by Teresa on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 04:38:35 PM EST
    CNN. I saw it a little while ago and I don't know if they're repeating the whole thing.

    Jeralyn, he addresses how this case began, outsider prosecutor, bypassing the grand jury, etc.

    He said he doesn't eat while a jury is out.

    CNN O'Mara interview (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by lily on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 05:50:16 PM EST
    multiple segments covering different topics

    Thank you! (none / 0) (#34)
    by Teresa on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 05:52:37 PM EST
    Jeralyn, I hope someone puts (none / 0) (#20)
    by Teresa on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 05:32:31 PM EST
    this whole interview on youtube. CNN is showing little bits at a time. His opinion on BDLR and discovery, etc., was blunt and interesting.

    He said he thinks Bernie comes from a jurisdiction where he can cherry pick cases with a lot of evidence and is used to going up against young public defenders and he and Don West aren't young public defenders. He said BDLR's discovery violations (my word) probably don't come to light in those type of cases.

    He also wishes they had some males on the jury but is ok overall. He had to complain to the judge that they were striking young white women for no reason.

    i'ts online on CNN. (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Jul 13, 2013 at 06:06:33 AM EST
    8 parts and they play automatically, one right after the other.

    Check out... (none / 0) (#87)
    by heidelja on Sat Jul 13, 2013 at 05:53:46 AM EST
    ...the CFNews13.com website or clickorlando.com. I have not, but one or the other should have it. It was broadcast in what seemed to be in its entirety by BrightHouse Channel 13 in Central Florida.

    Guy hammered (none / 0) (#38)
    by DennisD on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 05:56:56 PM EST
    the defense and I hope the jury sifts through the evidence themselves. At the very least, he was very persuasive in the moment.

    O'Mara's close was very good although I felt looking from one angle he didn't devote enough time to arguing Zimmerman's reasonable fear.

    GZ effect on Nancy Grace . . . (none / 0) (#80)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 08:45:05 PM EST
    while the Zimmerman trial has not turned Grace into a defender, it seems to have led her to say

    GZ is guilty, but the prosecution is doing so badly and so stupidly, they must be in competent!