Zimmerman Jury Recesses for Day

The jury in the George Zimmerman trial has recessed for the day. They will deliberate tomorrow beginning at 9:00 a.m.

News10 in Miami has profiles of the six jurors, with links to segments of their voir dire. If you'd rather read than watch video, check our forums where commenters live-blogged the voir dire. (Thanks especially to No Matter Never Mind, and CBoldt). If you just want the highlights, see below: [More...]

Note: the descriptions below are from the first round of voir dire, which was limited to pre-trial publicity. I will be adding anything significant from the second round, but it's more difficult because it was collective questioning and it wasn't always clear to us which juror was responding.

B-29: A Hispanic or African American nurse on an Alzheimer's ward who has seven children and lived in Chicago at time of shooting.

B-29 doesn't like news. She watches BRAVO. She doesn't browse the internet, except Facebook. Self-described Facebook fanatic. She's married.
She hasn't talked to anyone about the case or going for jury duty. She works part time, but her husband is the breadwinner. Her kids are 19, 18, 14, 10, and 3 year old twins.

She first heard of the case from friends in Chicago. They "took sides" because the victim was a child. She didn't comment, people soon stopped talking about it. She says she wasn't influenced by the conversations.

B-37: A middle-aged white woman who works for a chiropractor and has many pets. She described protests in Sanford as "rioting."

B-37 gets news from NBC. She watches the TODAY show. Since she has a lot of animals, newspapers go in the parrots cage without even being read. She has no use for newspapers because they aren't truthful. It's been a long time since she read one. She has at least: 1 parrot, 1 one winged crow, 3 dogs, 4 cats, and a lizard. She volunteers for a rescue group.

Her impression of the case: There was a death. Trayvon Martin, a teenage boy of color was shot and killed by Zimmerman after a scuffle late at night. She thought it was unfortunate somebody died and that's why you have a jury to prove innocence or guilt.

She has 24 and 27 year old daughters. One lives at home, one is 10 minutes away. She has not discussed the case with husband or daughters.

She remembers angry people, picketing people, and lots of news media. She thinks maybe it was overdone. She thinks the incident is just an unfortunate incident that happened. She does not listen to radio or do much on the internet. She shies away from politics and news. She doesn't pay attention to people giving opinions without facts.

B-51: A retired white woman from Oviedo who has a dog and 20-year-old cat. She knew a good deal about the case, but said "I'm not rigid in my thinking."

Her first impression was the case was sad. She watches Dianne Sawyer but did not know ABC was a national network. Her family is in Jacksonville (so are the prosecutors.) They didn't tell her any opinions about the case. They talk about their own 'dysfunctions' more than news.

She hasn't had much time for the news because she's been dealing with her uncle's death. She's executor of the estate. She is concerned about the media presence, it made her feel intimidated. She has been retired for five years.

She knew GZ was participated in Neighborhood Watch. She was surprised someone would be that active. She thought NW was just for passively watching, not patrolling.

B-51 never got the impression GZ was doing something wrong. She thought he was where he was supposed to be, doing what he was supposed to do.

She heard that GZ was told to wait for police. She recalls that he had called police, they asked him to wait and said they were on the way. She isn't sure if he waited. She said maybe the police weren't quick enough. She acknowledged it's possible GZ did something wrong.

She has been in managerial positions. She said when you get new information, you have to be big enough to change your mind.

She hadn't heard any of the evidence recordings but she had heard different experts say you can't tell anything from the recordings, including whose voice is on the call with the struggle. Later, she said she doesn't have opinion about who started fight. S

She has heard some of the Martin family attorneys on TV, perhaps at a memorial service or vigil. It didn't contribute to her knowledge of the case, or affect her emotionally. She hasn't heard any interviews of Tracy Martin or Sybrina Fulton.

She heard about criticism of the Sanford Police and remembers the police chief stepping down. She can't remember the details of the concerns. She lives in Oviedo. They have different police.

B-51 doesn't know what to think about whether GZ should have been arrested. All she remembers is seeing the back of his head in the video, and people were upset that he wasn't arrested sooner. She thinks Sanford Police were right to want to investigate before arresting. She didn't know about the prosecutor (Wolfinger) stepping down. B-51 repeatedly said 'jurist' instead of 'juror'.

B-76: A white middle-aged woman who said Zimmerman had an "altercation with the young man. There was a struggle and the gun went off."

She saw in the news a gun was involved, she knows GZ had a gun and was injured, thinks he was a community security guard. There was 'interaction', a struggle, a gun went off, a boy died and GZ was injured.

She heard about defense fund. She remembers one of his lawyers talking in court about the account. She had seen the Trayvon Martin's parents on TV but doesn't recall their lawyer. She saw the protests, but wasn't influenced. She recalls Zimmerman's wife was in the news, having something to do with the funds.

She has been in Seminole County since 1981 and does not have cable She watched some of the early pre-trial hearings. Asked about her reaction to GZ's injuries, she said it's possible they got in a fight before the gun went off.

On our forums, commenters wrote she came across as intelligent, articulate, fair, even tempered, patient. One thought she could end up as foreperson. (The media thinks B-51 will be the foreperson.)

She said she hadn't formed an opinion and got all her information from local TV news. She and her family members all think everyone deserves a fair trial, when the case was was on news they would say wait for the trial.

Someone, she thinks her daughter, wondered why a kid would be out at night getting candy. But none of them really formed any opinions. She thought her husband may have researched the case since he researches everything, but he wouldn't share it with her if he did. She said she would base a verdict only on the evidence.

E-6: A young white woman and mother who used to work in financial services. She didn't supervise others or resolve disputes. She used this case as an example to her adolescent children.

She first heard of the case shortly after it happened. She knew names of GZ and TM. She didn't have much time for following news. She doesn't recall seeing pictures other than a face photo of GZ. She thinks she only gets local TV channels. Her kids are 11 and 13.

She has mentioned the case when talking to her kids about safe behavior. She doesn't remember how specific the discussion was and she usually speaks to them in generalities. She talked about not doing things that would give others a false impression of doing wrong.

What stands out in her mind is it was an unfortunate incident. She doesn't know about Neighborhood Watch groups. She has never thought about whether they are a good or bad thing. She guesses it could be either.

When asked, she said she hadn't heard anything to make her think it wasn't self defense. She thinks there was no eyewitness. When asked to estimate how many times she has heard about the case in the news. She says maybe 200, there's something every few days.

She has heard the NEN recording with the screams. She said it was thought provoking, but she didn't form any opinions from it. She recalls reading the expert findings were inconclusive.

E-40: A white woman in her 60s who lived in Iowa at the time of the shooting. She heard national news reports and recalls the shooting was in a gated community and a teenager was killed.

She saw reports on local news in Iowa but didn't make an effort to follow the case. She doesn't have FaceBook, and gets very little news on internet. She hasn't researched the case since getting the summons.

O'Mara asked how she would deal with a fellow juror who wanted to bring in outside information. She said she'd steer the person away from that.

She likes NBC News and liked Peter Jennings. She doesn't prefer one network over another for political/ideological reasons.

< Janet Napolitano Resigning as Homeland Security Secretary | George Zimmerman: Weekend Verdict Watch >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Verdict Form Published (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Cylinder on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 07:35:47 PM EST
    The final verdict form for State v Zimmerman has been published on the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit Courts website.

    SIAP - I haven't read the latest topics today.

    No questions about self defense (none / 0) (#53)
    by MKS on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 09:25:23 PM EST
    It is pretty much a general verdict form.

    Let the jurors be jurors (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Dexter on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 09:16:13 PM EST
    Chill out and give the jurors a break.  They have always been and still are the only ones to decide this case pending appeals and the rule of law.

    Why accuse them of enjoying the luxuries of a hotel or worried about how long other juries have taken to make a decision?  This, my friends, is our judicial system.  

    I'd sure rather be at home in my own bed with my family and felines than be sequestered in a hotel.  Most of these women have children.  They may have pets.  They probably all have family and friends.


    that's right, they have children! (none / 0) (#72)
    by TeresaInPa on Sat Jul 13, 2013 at 02:49:58 PM EST
    I'm guessing they will be there for at least several more days ordering room service and taking long baths.  Just think, someone makes their beds everyday and does the dusting.

    They are probably staying (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by jbindc on Sat Jul 13, 2013 at 03:33:43 PM EST
    At a place like the Red Roof Inn  - not the Marriott or Hilton.  I doubt there's room service.  :)

    But it is nice to have the bathroom cleaned every day and clean towels and sheets!


    A nitwit (1.00 / 1) (#70)
    by rickroberts on Sat Jul 13, 2013 at 01:45:50 PM EST
    I'm convinced now that there must be a nitwit on the jury.

    You have posted this in two threads now (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Towanda on Sat Jul 13, 2013 at 04:26:18 PM EST
    along with ageist and others slurs.

    Stop it.  Now.  

    Go back to the blogs where your comments belong, the blogs that befit little boys in their jammies in their parents' basements doing driveby comments that only disparage others and contribute nothing.

    Here, we contribute to discussion toward understanding of issues.  And here, we respect all of those involved in the judicial system, including jurors who are giving enormous time and effort -- and giving up pay, time with families, and more -- to preserve your rights.

    Try to be deserving of their efforts on your behalf.


    I was on a murder jury (none / 0) (#74)
    by TeresaInPa on Sat Jul 13, 2013 at 02:57:32 PM EST
    you might have considered me a nitwit.  We came to a decision in less than 4 hours, but could have been quicker.  I kind of manipulated the process, forcing people to consider both guilty and not guilty to first degree murder.  Ultimately we found the 17 year old guilty of first degree murder.  But it was so sad.  He didn't seem to have a single person in court with him and the trial only lasted a week.

    I'm worried (none / 0) (#1)
    by rickroberts on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 07:00:28 PM EST
    This one seems easy to me. If there is a doubt as to self-defense, it goes to George. You're done. No?

    Yes, if they find self-defense (none / 0) (#4)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 07:10:34 PM EST
    the killing was not unlawful and it cannot be murder or manslaughter.

    So why ... (none / 0) (#7)
    by rickroberts on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 07:19:08 PM EST
    do they need more than even an hour?

    Jeffrey Toobin on CNN (none / 0) (#17)
    by DennisD on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 07:46:26 PM EST
    said that since the OJ verdict, where the jury was criticized for coming to a verdict so quickly, juries are hesitant to come to quick verdicts in high profile cases.

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by chaking on Sat Jul 13, 2013 at 12:04:45 PM EST
    That would assume the jurors remember the criticism from the OJ trial right?  I find that a bit hard to believe -

    Imagine you have the power of a genie (none / 0) (#2)
    by cboldt on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 07:05:23 PM EST
    You, the jury, command the attention of a pile of press, and are being housed and fed at state expense.

    Is that not tempting?

    Huh? (none / 0) (#3)
    by oculus on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 07:07:06 PM EST
    Use your imagination and independence (none / 0) (#5)
    by cboldt on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 07:12:44 PM EST
    The press is waiting for you to announce.  So, even if you know your decision, wait, just to tease.  Wait a long time if you feel like it.  The longer you delay, the more anticipation you create.

    How many people have the press hanging at the edge of the press's seat?  This jury has that power.  So, delay just for kicks.


    Seriously doubt they feel like delaying (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by ruffian on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 07:18:03 PM EST
    Stuck in a hotel, not able to talk about the case, the thing foremost on their minds, outside the jury room.

    More likely they spent that last 3 hours of a long week talking about the case, which they had not been able to do with each other yet, and getting a general feel for where everyone's head was at, deciding to start fresh in the morning.  Seems like the sensible thing to me.


    I agree (none / 0) (#10)
    by cboldt on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 07:25:28 PM EST
    There is no hurry.  My only point was to explain what I meant, not to say that is what I think the jury is doing.  I have a bit of a devilish imp who resides with me, and she would notice that many people are paying attention.

    cbolt..... (none / 0) (#47)
    by Cashmere on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 09:10:17 PM EST
    Why is the "devilish imp" female???  Curious minds and all.. :)

    Sexual innuendo (1.00 / 1) (#50)
    by cboldt on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 09:19:38 PM EST
    The female has the upper hand in delay of gratification.  "Tease" was an obvious clue, but the post reeks of one party (the female - the jury) taking advantage of the other party's (the male - the press - the public) urge for gratification by delaying consent.

    Yikes (none / 0) (#77)
    by SuzieTampa on Sat Jul 13, 2013 at 04:56:50 PM EST
    Is this sort of like: No means yes? Because women delay a man's gratification, just for their own amusement and sense of power, before they finally consent to sex?

    Have you considered that some women might delay a man's gratification because 1) they haven't decided yet to consent 2) they are holding out hope that they might get some gratification, too, before it's all over?



    Um, no, it is not sort of like that. (none / 0) (#78)
    by cboldt on Sat Jul 13, 2013 at 05:19:15 PM EST
    Where in my post do I suggest that the male has any right to over-rule the female's decision? (rhetorical question, reply if you want, but I'm done with discussion with you). The post is meant as giving the female sole authority over any decision to proceed.  No means no, period, end of discussion.

    Assumptions (none / 0) (#51)
    by Teresa on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 09:19:56 PM EST
    I thought cbolt was a serious minded male. Now I find out she's an impish female?

    Male - old - bald - slight build (none / 0) (#52)
    by cboldt on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 09:23:38 PM EST
    But, understand the negotiation tactics of people who are female, young, have hair, and aren't skinny runts.  As well as assorted other types.  Been around the barn a few times.

    The more common thing is the jury tries to (none / 0) (#8)
    by oculus on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 07:19:13 PM EST
    resist the urge to wrap it home and be released.

    Oculus, do you think most jurors (none / 0) (#18)
    by Teresa on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 07:47:11 PM EST
    really don't discuss the case away from the jury room, even a little? Like if you had one hold out, you think a couple who are friendly might not be able to resist?

    What else do they have to do? I'd be fine with my Kindle, but I'd say some of them are going crazy.


    I have observed groupings on juries. (none / 0) (#25)
    by oculus on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 08:17:32 PM EST
    I prefer to think they follow the court's instructions. Not sure you would be permitted to use your kindle. Don't you have the ability to access the Internet on it?

    I can Amazon (none / 0) (#31)
    by Teresa on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 08:35:11 PM EST
    I have the cheapie, so I'm not sure. I guess I'd just take regular books with me.

    Jury Duty (none / 0) (#45)
    by Char Char Binks on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 08:56:02 PM EST
    was a Paulie Shore movie from the 90s about that very thing.  It was actually very funny!

    Some of those don't sound all that (none / 0) (#9)
    by Teresa on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 07:20:58 PM EST
    defense friendly. Why were the prosecutors supposedly unhappy?

    A lawyer down there who is one of the (none / 0) (#11)
    by Teresa on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 07:26:11 PM EST
    legal analysts is positive a guilty verdict will be overturned due to failure to disprove self-defense. What does that mean?

    Is it the judge? That she should have granted the JOA? Appeals courts don't overturn just jury decisions, do they or can they?

    She also thinks overturn on two other things - denying (due process I think??) for not granting a continuation due to late discovery like the texts. She thinks the texts are admittable by law and that's going to get it overturned also.

    The jury instructions say you can take into account the physical abilities of each one and the defense wasn't allowed to do it.

    I think I repeated all that right.

    An appellate court could conclude the prosecution (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by oculus on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 07:32:07 PM EST
    not disprove self defense beyond a reasonable doubt. But it is pretty rare for an appellate court to substitute itself for the jury n

    Not so rare in Florida (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 08:32:43 PM EST
    State v Sims, 2013: Court erred in not granting post-verdict motion for judgment of acquittal where evidence was insufficient "The jury verdicts could be sustained only by stacking several inferences one on another."

    See State v Dorsey and other cases here; Wiley v State (2011) reversing second degree murder for insufficient showing of ill will hatred etc.


    Apparently they aren't timid (none / 0) (#15)
    by Teresa on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 07:43:05 PM EST
    about overturning judges based on case law I've seen linked in FL. I thought it was very unusual, too, in my layperson opinion.

    Of source, ten examples of thousands of cases is still a very small amount.


    Boy Howdy... (none / 0) (#16)
    by bmaz on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 07:46:16 PM EST
    ...is Occulus right about "pretty rare" for this to happen. Convictions are hardly ever overturned on appeal only on the basis there should have been a DV/JOA.

    Then how is justice done if (none / 0) (#19)
    by Teresa on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 07:49:39 PM EST
    a jury truly screws up? Just tough luck? Not specifically this case, but you know it happens.

    Hopefully (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by bmaz on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 08:09:33 PM EST
    as cboldt and Ruffian point out below, the court finds some other error and remands for a new trial. But just flat out saying "hey, this case should have never made it to a jury", not too often.

    Alleged jury misconduct, (none / 0) (#24)
    by oculus on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 08:14:15 PM EST
    erroneous court rulings, etc.  but often such errors are deemed harmless error.

    You've got the hang of it! (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by cboldt on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 07:37:16 PM EST
    The gist on JOA is sufficiency of evidence, and the argument there is that state lacks sufficiency.  That is decided "as a matter of law" which takes the verdict out of the hands of the jury.  

    The mechanism for taking the verdict away from the jury is JOA, and if the appeals court decides "as a matter of law" that the state did not meet its burden in disproof of self defense, then the decision is taken away from the trial court.

    As for an appeals court overturning discovery and evidence admission decisions made by Nelson, those are grounds for a new trial, not a granting of "not guilty" verdict.  Zimmerman is still in jeopardy, and the fresh jury will get the "Martin fighter" evidence (which coves the disparate ability angle), as well as rested counsel and whatever may be uncovered in ongoing discovery.


    In that event of course the defense (none / 0) (#20)
    by ruffian on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 07:51:13 PM EST
    will be happy to get a new trial, but I wonder how much good that evidence would do anyway....they are going to say that Martin was such a superior fighter....but he still didn't even knock GZ out?  Most likely if the new jury did come to  different verdict, it would be for an entirely different reason.

    Well, that's the point (none / 0) (#21)
    by cboldt on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 08:03:32 PM EST
    The new jury would get evidence of Martin's association with fighting, being mounted, drawing blood, and maybe it comes to the same "hung" conclusion, maybe not.

    Each trial is its own critter.  I imagine the exam and cross exam of Rachel would change.  I guess, in short, it could be gloves off as far as Martin's memory goes.

    I do agree.  We don't know how a second jury would reach its verdict.


    We also don't know how this judge or AA different (none / 0) (#27)
    by oculus on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 08:29:55 PM EST
    would rule re newly discovered evidence, if objected to.

    if the appeals court reversed on the grounds of (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 08:39:33 PM EST
    failing to allow the evidence at trial, the retrial would have to include it.

    A big appeal issue will be the refusal to grant a continuance due to the state's not turning over impeaching/brady material found on Martin's phone until the start of voir dire and refusing to allow them to introduce evidence of Martin's fighting in the text messages.

    That medical examiner from Jacksonville that testified: She wasn't disclosed until April and she refused to schedule a depo before trial. The defense also asked for a continuance due to inadequate time to investigate her.

    But I'm thinking acquittal on all counts, and quickly, not appeal.


    Hasn't the time for "quickly" expired? (none / 0) (#39)
    by oculus on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 08:43:20 PM EST
    "Quickly" is subjective (none / 0) (#43)
    by cboldt on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 08:54:31 PM EST
    I think the "quickly" window shut 30 minutes after the jury was charged.

    But, I could make a straight face argument that any decision in less than 2 weeks was "quick", compared with the length of the trial.


    I went to a law and motion (none / 0) (#57)
    by MKS on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 11:16:39 PM EST
    calendar in San Diego once, and had to wait until the judge finished instructing the jury.  The jury marched out, the Judge called a couple cases on motions.

      After no more than ten minutes, the buzzer sounded from the jury room, and the jury came back in.  

    Verdict.  The County of San Diego not liable for a poorly engineered road that resulted in a car crash.


    I prosecuted a vreceiving stolen propert case (veh (none / 0) (#58)
    by oculus on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 11:23:13 PM EST
    Where the jury returned an NG verdict in maybe 20 minutes!

    You guys in San Diego (none / 0) (#59)
    by MKS on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 11:31:25 PM EST
    have a beautiful new courthouse....Sure beats Downtown LA Superior...

    I call it the Palace of Justice. Civil cases only (none / 0) (#60)
    by oculus on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 11:35:58 PM EST
    When my cousin was murdered (none / 0) (#62)
    by DebFrmHell on Sat Jul 13, 2013 at 04:04:32 AM EST
    it took them 30 minutes to give him 32-life.

    When I was a court clerk (none / 0) (#67)
    by jbindc on Sat Jul 13, 2013 at 08:35:23 AM EST
    We had a felony larceny case where we started at noon, had voir dire, picked the jury, had the trial, and the jury went out and was back in 15 minutes.  They said they waited that long out of respect (it was a clear cut case and the defendant's 6th larceny offense) - they had taken an initial vote when they walked in the door and it was unanimous - guilty.  Trial was completed (with verdict) by 4 pm, and I even got to leave early that day!

    Does anyone know (none / 0) (#23)
    by MKS on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 08:10:22 PM EST
    why the jurors were asked about their pets during voir dire?

    Is there some correlation between having pets and also having a certain point of view that would affect this case?

    Someone posted on another thread that the ME (5.00 / 0) (#26)
    by Angel on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 08:20:15 PM EST
    for the defense did some testing on animals.

    Testing? He shot live animals! (none / 0) (#28)
    by cboldt on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 08:30:16 PM EST
    The prosecution affirmed this on cross examination.  A defense expert commissioned the killing of live animals by gunshot!

    Hey, learned opinions don't grow on trees! (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by ruffian on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 08:38:17 PM EST
    I didn't specify that it was gunshot testing, but (1.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Angel on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 08:55:43 PM EST
    if that's what it was then I'm sure both sides would want to know how any potential jurors felt about the issue.  

    Isn't this expert the one defense-oriented. (none / 0) (#29)
    by oculus on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 08:32:28 PM EST
    observers expect to convince the jury to acquit?  Amazing.

    Talk about connecting the dots (none / 0) (#32)
    by cboldt on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 08:36:29 PM EST
    Defense gunshot wound expert killing animals on purpose!  Well then, Zimmerman must be guilty.

    I suspect there is a clinical definition for this sort of logic.


    Ha. I am not an animal person. (none / 0) (#34)
    by oculus on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 08:38:50 PM EST
    He's the most respected (none / 0) (#35)
    by Teresa on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 08:39:28 PM EST
    medical examiner in the whole country. My dogs are my babies and I could seriously hurt anyone who touched them.

    But, how do they test gunshot wounds? Dead bodies won't show the same result. What's the alternative? No forensics?

    Come on, Oculus, I know you've heard of Dr. Di Maio.


    I have never heard of a ballistics expert who (none / 0) (#37)
    by oculus on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 08:41:20 PM EST
    Relied on shooting firearms at animals for data.

    He didn't do much good for (none / 0) (#38)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 08:41:48 PM EST
    Phil Spector. Being a great expert isn't always enough.

    A lot more evidence in that case (none / 0) (#40)
    by Teresa on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 08:46:30 PM EST
    though, no?

    Jeralyn, I was glad to see your opinion. I wondered what you thought.

    I'm going back and forth. If they buy the self-defense, what else is there to do? But then again, I can't imagine them, knowing what we know they knew pre-trial, making a hasty decision.


    I thought $2500 was a steal! I assume his (none / 0) (#41)
    by oculus on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 08:50:27 PM EST
    bill is closer to that in the Spector case.

    it was done in accordance with (none / 0) (#61)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Jul 13, 2013 at 12:51:04 AM EST
    federal regulations:

    DI MAIO: Following federal regulations, yes. What you have to do is the animals have to be kept in a federally approved area and then a veterinarian has to be present at the time of the experiments and the animals have to be anesthetized.

    DE LA RIONDA: So then you started shooting at them? Or how many shots -- how many times were they shot?

    DI MAIO: I have to read the paper originally. But it was a test to determine whether the testing method used by firearms examiners was valid.

    DE LA RIONDA: You determined it was, correct?

    DI MAIO: Yes, sir. It was.

    Di Maio (none / 0) (#63)
    by ding7777 on Sat Jul 13, 2013 at 07:06:14 AM EST
    doesn't shoot animals for each case does he?

    I thought Di Maio shot them long ago... when he was determining gunshot wounds in general.


    Validating an analytical method (none / 0) (#64)
    by cboldt on Sat Jul 13, 2013 at 07:22:17 AM EST
    What di Maio did was validate that ballistics experiments against paper, vis a vis tattooing or stippling, will show the same results as experiments against live flesh.  He said that during his testimony in the Zimmerman case.

    Pathologist Testifies in Zimmerman Case

    DON WEST, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Your opinion as to the distance is based upon your training and research?

    DI MAIO: Yeah, I've done a lot of research in powder tattooing, and whether you can make valid judgments as to range. That is, what firearms examiners will do, they'll use like, usually, heavy white paper and they'll fire the gun, and they get a whole, and then they get marks around it.  And then, by the size of the pattern of the density, they'll give an opinion as to the range. Well, this has been used for 75, 80 years, to make judgments.  Was the problem was, does it really reflect what happens on the skin? And I got curious about that, so I decided to make a determination, and I did experiments. And you have to use living animals to do it. And based on the experiments, I found out that, yes, it's valid.

    Prosecution Questions Gun-Shot Expert in Zimmerman Case

    DE LA RIONDA: You started shooting at them? Or how many shots -- how many times were they shot?

    DI MAIO: I have to read the paper originally. But it was a test to determine whether the testing method used by firearms examiners was valid.

    DE LA RIONDA: You determined it was, correct?

    DI MAIO: Yes, sir. It was.

    No, it was from a long time ago (none / 0) (#65)
    by Teresa on Sat Jul 13, 2013 at 07:33:30 AM EST
    I took it. I doubt he did the shooting, wouldn't you think?

    Panel on Piers Morgan (none / 0) (#42)
    by Teresa on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 08:50:55 PM EST
    has decided that GZ pulled the gun on TM and when TM tried to protect himself, GZ shot him. Holding him for the police and TM resisted and he shot him because of that. Wouldn't that be premeditated even if only for a minute or two?

    I'm not sure how that goes along with the evidence of gun shot angle, inches away, clothes away from the body, what John Good saw, etc.

    Why am I watching this stuff? Our media is awful with facts, no matter which side you believe.

    Omg, you need to stop watching! (5.00 / 0) (#46)
    by ruffian on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 09:00:35 PM EST
    I know! I've decided I'm OCD (none / 0) (#49)
    by Teresa on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 09:17:58 PM EST
    Or is obsessive the right word? I think the prosecutors manipulated and hid evidence, Ruffian. I don't care if it's GZ or Joe Blow, that outrages me.

    That's not justice!


    Can't we start a movement (none / 0) (#71)
    by TeresaInPa on Sat Jul 13, 2013 at 02:47:43 PM EST
    to send brain dead twits back to England?

    Speaking of Dr. Di Miao (none / 0) (#54)
    by Teresa on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 09:51:39 PM EST
    What was the deal with Judge Nelson asking GZ if he was ok with the agreement not to ask VDM, certain quesions/subjects?

    What could that be? I can't see what an ME, considered a national respected expert by all his peers, would have to say that couldn't be admitted and required GZ's permission not to ask.

    Toxicology (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by Cylinder on Fri Jul 12, 2013 at 09:55:40 PM EST
    The court had Zimmerman waive asking toxicology questions. That issue was never raised in testimony or by exhibit.

    Ah, ok. (none / 0) (#66)
    by Teresa on Sat Jul 13, 2013 at 07:36:55 AM EST
    I didn't realize he'd do the toxicology part, too.

    Regarding the murder 2 deliberations (none / 0) (#68)
    by ruffian on Sat Jul 13, 2013 at 09:52:57 AM EST
    Were any of GZ's friends asked if he typically uses terms like 'f*** punks' or 'aholes' in a casual, friendly way, as the defense tried to say police do when Serino was on the stand? I think their example was something like 'hey aholes, want to go to dinner?'. Serino declined to claim that as common police talk. I wonder if GZs friends did too.

    Sean the call taker (none / 0) (#73)
    by lily on Sat Jul 13, 2013 at 02:51:53 PM EST
    said he hears plenty of that language