home

Zimmerman Juror B37: It Was Self Defense

The interview of George Zimmerman juror B-37 on Anderson Cooper last night was extraordinary for the detail the juror provided about the deliberations process.

Shorter version: Zimmerman acted in self-defense. He was credible. Race was not a factor -- the jurors never even discussed race. Martin attacked Zimmerman. 5 of the 6 jurors believed Zimmerman was screaming. The sixth wasn't sure, she thought it might be Martin. Zimmerman did not act from ill-will or hatred. If anything he was over-eager to help others, which is indicative of a good heart.

Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with this juror, and taking into consideration she is speaking only for herself as to why she voted to acquit, it is clear from her statements that the jury as whole unanimously agreed the state failed in this prosecution. Which makes Angela Corey's interview, aired on HLN last night, every more bizarre. [More...]

For those who didn't have the time to watch the juror interview, I'll summarize. The transcript (not video) is here.

On the prior calls to non-emergency, Juror B37 said there had been an "unbelievable" number of burglaries. Olivia Bertalan, one of the burglary victims, particularly struck a chord with her, as did the information that the perpetrator ran away but was later caught and charged. That would be Emmanuel Burgess.

When the defense called Olivia Bertalan, whose house had been robbed, I wrote a long post about it because a reporter from CNN had such a uninformed take. She thought the defense got hoodwinked by her testimony, that the jurors would think O'Mara was playing a race card and it would backfire. Just the opposite, as I've been saying since April, 2012 when I realized the state was spinning Zimmerman's prior calls to non-emergency. In five of the six instances, they didn't hurt him, they helped him. Clearly, the jury saw it the same way.

As to ill-will, hatred, spite etc., which the State was required to prove for Murder 2, Juror B-37 said:

I think he's overeager to help people. Like the lady who got broken in and robbed, while her baby and her were upstairs, he came over and he offered her a lock for her backsliding glass door. He offered her his phone number, his wife's phone number. He told her that she could come over if she felt stressed or she needed anybody, come over to their house, sit down, have dinner. Not anybody -- I mean, you have to have a heart to do that and care and help people.

Unlike the pundits and others who either had blinders on during the trial due to their accepting the meme promulgated by the media and Martin family lawyers, or were watching a different trial, these jurors watched the same trial I did.

As to profiling, B-37 says GZ profiled anyone coming in who acted strange. She believes GZ found Martin suspicious because of his actions. She said anyone's suspicion's would be aroused by Martin's actions that night. When asked why, she answers:

COOPER: Why do you think George Zimmerman found Trayvon Martin suspicious then?

Juror: Because he was cutting through the back, it was raining. He said he was looking in houses as he was walking down the road. Kind of just not having a purpose to where he was going. He was stopping and starting. But I mean, that's George's rendition of it, but I think the situation where Trayvon got into him being late at night, dark at night, raining, and anybody would think anybody walking down the road stopping and turning and looking, if that's exactly what happened, is suspicious. And George said that he didn't recognize who he was.

While it wasn't late at night, but 7:00 pm, and whether you or I might disagree, it's still a stunning rejection of the state's most basic theory of the case.

On the credibility of witnesses B37 opined: Rachel Jeanteal was not very credible. She feels sorry for her because she didn't want to be there, but she didn't add anything to the story, particularly given the timing of her calls and GZ's call to non-emergency.(I doubt these jurors would be swayed by Rachel's appearance last night on Piers Morgan's show. She came across to me as being loyal to Martin, and although less petulant than she was at trial, not someone who was steeped in the facts.) I've said before, she's not stupid, she's manipulative. After watching her interview on Piers, I'd add calculating to the description.

The witnesses B-37 found credible: Neighbors Jenna Lauer and John Good. Another neighbor, Selene Bahadoor, who thought she heard figures going left to right, was believed to be less credible. (For good reason: She's the neighbor who posted her support for the Martin Change.Org petition on her Facebook page back on March 20, 2012, just before she was interviewed by FDLE.)

One of the most persuasive witnesses: George John Donnelly, Zimmerman's friend who served as a medic in Vietnam and described screams.

B-37 has no doubt at all GZ feared for his life in the situation he was in at the time.

B-37 said the dispatcher egged GZ on. He should have told him to stay in his car, not ask which way Martin had gone.

She said GZ had every right to carry a gun.

On Zimmerman's statements, the state did not convince her Zimmerman's overall version of events was false. She said the videotapes, phone calls, witnesses and prior calls to non-emergency show he told the truth during his reenactment. She thought there may have been some fabrications or enhancements in the re-enactment, but overall he was consistent. She noted Serino thought so too (which means the state made another miscalculation regarding Serino by not objecting to him giving his opinion on Zimmerman's credibility until after the jury heard it. You can't put toothpaste back in the tube.

B-37 even thinks TM may have reached for GZ's gun but isn't sure. However, she believes GZ thought he was reaching for his gun and that's what counts according to the jury instructions. She said it doesn't really make a difference because George had a right to protect himself.

B-37 thinks Martin turned the encounter physical by punching Zimmerman. She says the evidence at the scene supports this, such as the placement of the flashlight and keys and his larger flashlight. She thinks TM attacked GZ where the larger flashlight was found.

She stops short of saying Martin was the aggressor. She thinks the roles changed. GZ got in a little too deep but she thinks TM decided he wasn't going to let GZ get the better of him, and got mad and attacked him.

On the DNA evidence: The state failed to bag his hands and dry his clothes. It didn't do a lot of things they should have done.

She thought the defense animation was credible, and the parents' testimony on voice canceled each other out.

On how the deliberations began and progressed:

When they first got into the jury room, they elected a foreperson and took a straw vote. Three thought not guilty, two manslaughter and one murder 2. But they hadn't read the jury instructions at that time. Once they read the instructions, and all six ruled out murder 2 without reaching self-defense. Then they got to manslaughter and sent out the question on manslaughter.

So it's pretty clear these jurors proceeded in the literal order of the jury instructions: First decide murder 2. If you don't accept it, go on to manslaughter. And then decide whether self-defense applies. If it does, he did not commit a crime and cannot be convicted of manslaughter.

The jury went through every piece of evidence before getting to the law. When it got to the law, Murder 2 was rejected before reaching self-defense, which means it rejected murder 2 on the state of mind element.

Manslaughter only requires proof that GZ intended to shoot Zimmerman, and Martin died as a result of the shooting. Thus, unless self-defense or excusable homicide applied, they would have had to return a guilty verdict on manslaughter. But since they accepted he acted in self-defense (or at least that the state failed to disprove it, they had to find him not guilty of manslaughter.

A few jurors had questions about whether they could consider what led up to the shooting in deciding self-defense and that's when they sent out the question. But they figured out on their own, correctly, that the only moment that mattered for self- defense was the moment he shot Martin: Did he reasonably believe he needed to use deadly force to prevent great harm to himself at the time he shot Martin. The act/series of act language applies only to whether Zimmerman had ill will hatred, etc. for Murder 2.

In deciding whether George Zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you must judge him by the circumstances by which he was surrounded at the time the force was used.
The state would have lost on murder 2 even if the jury found the events leading up to the shooting were evidence of ill-will, hatred etc, if the jury believed GZ acted in self-defense, or the state failed to disprove it, which there is now no question they did. Since neither the manslaughter nor self-defense instructions use the words "series of acts", it's not hard to see how the jury figured it out on their own so that even the two jurors who had a question about events leading up to the shooting could be satisfied.

Angela Corey and Bernie de la Rionda missed by miles. In their interview last night, they said they had been sure the jury would find hatred, ill-will and malice, based on the "series of acts" language; that the prior calls to non-emergency would work against GZ; that TM was "prey"; that Zimmerman stalked TM and was a murderer; and that GZ incited TM's punch. They missed on every point.

While she's only one juror and she's careful not to say what individual pieces of evidence or testimony were most important to other jurors, she makes clear they all agreed on the basics: Murder 2 was rejected without having to reach self-defense; Manslaughter could not result in a guilty verdict because they agreed GZ acted in self-defense (or the state failed to disprove self-defense). Juror B-37 says her belief is "I had no doubt George feared for his life in the situation he was in at the time."

The instructions dictate:

A person is justified in using deadly force if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself.

In deciding whether George Zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you must judge him by the circumstances by which he was surrounded at the time the force was used.

The danger facing George Zimmerman need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. Based upon appearances, George Zimmerman must have actually believed that the danger was real.

As for her seeking a book deal, she's already dropped that idea. They just wanted to tell the story.

The biggest slap to the prosecution: Juror 37 would feel comfortable now having Zimmerman be on her Neighborhood Watch. As to him getting his gun back, she says he'd be more responsible with a gun than anyone on this planet right now, having undergone this ordeal.

As I listened to this juror, all I could think of was what an incredible job jury consultant Robert Hirschhorn did for the defense.

Did anyone even catch what Angela Corey said in the HLN interview about how she thinks peremptory challenges should return to being solely the choice of the party tossing the juror, and the parties shouldn't be required to provide explanations, race-neutral or otherwise? The whole point of Batson challenges is to protect prospective jurors from challenges based on race. In this case, the state excused five female Caucasians in a row. Angela Corey doesn't think an explanation should be necessary? If Batson wasn't settled law, what's to prevent her from excusing minority jurors in her next trial? Answer: Nothing.

< Zimmmerman Juror B-37 Seeks Book Deal | Zimmerman: The State's Failure to Humanize Trayvon Martin >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Speaking of Bernie and Corey via Reuters, (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by friendofinnocence on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 08:39:39 AM EST
    Mark O'Mara calls them, "A disgrace to my profession".

    http://www.trust.org/item/20130716025224-bjod9

    Mark Geragos on CNN called Corey (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 08:54:23 AM EST
    an abomination and said she should be disbarred. That's not going to happen, but it was sleazy to call GZ a murderer after the jury found he was not, and to claim Martin was "prey." She seems to me to be in total denial that the jury rejected not just the conclusion the state wanted them to reach, but every premise the conclusion was founded upon.


    Parent
    Jeralyn (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Darby on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 09:32:27 AM EST
    What about her misrepresenting the law?  Claiming that they prooved George was neither dead or suffered great bodily harm so his self defense claim was invalid. This totally misrepresents the law and really bothers me.

    Parent
    She wasn't the only guy (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by txantimedia on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 12:45:19 PM EST
    Guy stated during the trial that shooting someone in the heart demonstrates malice.  I almost fell out of my chair.  I thought, What??  Now I have to worry about WHERE I shoot someone in a self defense situation?

    I found that statement highly objectionable.

    Parent

    Better not to shoot anyone (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by MKS on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 12:46:09 PM EST
    Communist! n/t ;) (3.00 / 2) (#116)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 01:00:39 PM EST
    I think you must be misinterpreting (1.00 / 0) (#29)
    by Anne on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 09:56:29 AM EST
    what she said.

    I believe the burden was on the state to prove that George was not in danger of death or great bodily harm and therefore he could not claim that he acted in self-defense.

    Corey, I believe, is saying that she believes the state did meet that burden.

    From the instructions:

    A person is justified in using deadly force if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself.

    In deciding whether George Zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you must judge him by the circumstances by which he was surrounded at the time the force was used. The danger facing George Zimmerman need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. Based upon appearances,George Zimmerman must have actually believed that the danger was real.

    But if you have a link to her actual comments, that would be helpful.

    Parent

    Wll look (none / 0) (#30)
    by Darby on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 10:01:55 AM EST
    But even what you quoted from Cory above is inaccurate isn't it?   The  burden was not to proove that george was not in danger, but that he did it believe he was in danger. IOW the arguments that his wounds weren't  near fatal does not matter. What matters if he reasonably believed thy were at the time.

    Parent
    Darby, what I quoted was from the (none / 0) (#33)
    by Anne on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 10:15:31 AM EST
    jury instructions, not Angela Corey.

    The instruction explains what is required for a finding of self-defense; it is the state's burden to prove that the defense did not meet those requirements.

    Parent

    No. I am talking about this (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Darby on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 10:21:49 AM EST
    Statement of yours "
    I believe the burden was on the state to prove that George was not in danger of death or great bodily harm and therefore he could not claim that he acted in self-defense.
    ".     The state had to show that he we not in  FEAR of.   ...

    I cannot find a transcript  but it was towards the end of he interview when Corey said they charged him because they wold not him claim he was dead or greatly harmed when they prooved he was neither. My paraphrasing, but I listened about 5 times

    Parent

    The instructions clearly reference (none / 0) (#44)
    by Anne on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 10:57:32 AM EST
    the appearance of danger.

    I'm sorry, but I'm not sure how to respond to your comment because this:

    they charged him because they wold not him claim he was dead or greatly harmed when they prooved he was neither.

    makes no sense to me.

    Parent

    I understand the jury instruction was accurate (none / 0) (#57)
    by Darby on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 11:35:33 AM EST
    Cory stated that she charged Zimmerman because she would not let him claim death or great bodily injury because the state could provoke those things did not happen. My point is of course both things did not happen, but she is misrepresenting the law. They do not have to happen.  George just has to have a reasonable fear they will happen.  Hope this makes more sense now

    Parent
    Wrong (5.00 / 8) (#42)
    by rickroberts on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 10:52:44 AM EST
    Bob, you saying something that never happened at trial to support a narrative that you refuse to give up. O'Mara and West didn't say or present anything to portray Martin as "a drug-taking hoodlum". They specifically avoided the toxicology report though they were given the go-ahead to introduce it.

    That you have to repeat an untruth is telling.

    that comment was deleted for (none / 0) (#197)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 06:23:51 PM EST
    blatantly false statements. The defense did not introduce or refer to Martin's marijuana use. It got a ruling it could, and then chose not to.

    Parent
    On Rachel Jeantel (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by HereIBlog on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 11:22:24 AM EST
    Jeralyn, first, thanks for all of your work covering/explaining the law in this case.

    B37 said something that about Rachel's credibility that most seem to ignore - the phone records. Rachel could not have heard "get off" as she said on the stand without the dispatcher also hearing the alleged confrontation. GZ was on the phone for ~2 minutes after TM and Rachel disconnected.

    Also, if we believe Rachel's interview last night on CNN, then TM suspected GZ was some sort of security guard. Rachel explained that the connotation of the word "cracka" is someone acting like the police, a security guard or something.

    Chronology (none / 0) (#58)
    by Mr Mark Martinson on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 11:38:21 AM EST
    Anyone know of a chart that shows the times George and RJ were on the phone?

    Parent
    Phone times reported (none / 0) (#61)
    by HereIBlog on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 11:44:01 AM EST
    From the Click Orlanda site:

    West then focused on the timeline of the night with the 911 calls and Martin's phone call records. Jeantel said she told Martin to run and he did. Zimmerman said Martin was running at 7:11:41 and Jeantel said she told Martin to run until call disconnected at 7:11:47. The first 911 call was made at 7:16:11. Jeantel's testimony on Martin running appears to be consistent with Zimmerman's story and forensic times almost to the second, records show. What hasn't been stated is Zimmerman's location from 7:13:40 when Zimmerman's non-emergency call ends and 7:16:11, when the witness 911 call was made.


    Parent
    Race was a factor. (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by indy in sc on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 11:29:12 AM EST
    Regardless of what the prosecutor, defense, juror, whoever else says--it is clear that race was a factor in all of this.  Was it the deciding factor? I still think the law and facts were not on the prosecution's side in this, so probably not.  But you cannot really believe it didn't factor in at any point from the incident itself through the trial and verdict.  

    You cannot believe that there is a systemic problem with race in the justice system and yet think those issues never touched the case in any way.  

    The jury started out 3-3 (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by shoephone on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 11:45:21 AM EST
    Three - not guilty
    Two - guilty, manslaughter
    One - guilty, murder 2

    I realize the verdict is the verdict, but I find it extremely interesting that no one is even mentioning  that it was split when the deliberations began.

    Yes (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 11:52:46 AM EST
    Not sure if you read Jeralyn's post, but that split was before the jury read the instructions. Those instructions (following the law) led to a acquittal of all charges.

    Parent
    You're right. (none / 0) (#84)
    by shoephone on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 12:06:54 PM EST
    I skimmed through it. But still, even after the rereading of instructions, there was still one hold out for manslaughter (something I heard on this morning's news). Wonder what changed her mind. That would be the juror I would be interested from hearing from.


    Parent
    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 12:11:32 PM EST
    But that is likely due to the fact that the self-defense instructions were last on the instruction sheet..  

    Parent
    I haven't heard of any holdout for (none / 0) (#205)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 06:43:08 PM EST
    manslaughter.

    Manslaughter only requires proof that GZ intended to shoot Zimmerman, and Martin died as a result of the shooting. Thus, unless self-defense or excusable homicide applied, they would have had to return a guilty verdict on manslaughter. Thus, their ultimate rejection of manslaughter means they accepted self-defense or at least concluded that the state failed to disprove it. Otherwise, under the instructions, they would have had to find him guilty of manslaughter.

    It may be that one juror was not convinced he acted in self-defense but agreed the state failed to disprove it. Since Zimmerman had no burden of proof, it's immaterial to the resolution of the criminal charges.

    Parent

    Maybe Tonight We Will Find Out More (none / 0) (#75)
    by RickyJim on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 11:54:23 AM EST
    Is Part 2 of the juror interview scheduled for tonight?  I hope we will learn more on how they got from the original 1-2-3 split to 0-0-6.

    Parent
    Are you seriously that ignorant? (5.00 / 5) (#78)
    by txantimedia on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 12:00:08 PM EST
    "Defense attorneys painting a picture to the all female, all white jury  of Martin as a drug-taking hoodlum had nothing to do with stoking racist fears & stereotypes, it was all about presenting "relevant" facts."

    First of all, it wasn't an all white jury.  One juror was Hispanic.

    Secondly, Martin's drug use was NEVER brought into evidence in the trial.

    Thirdly, the defense NEVER portrayed Martin as a hoodlum.

    What trial were you watching?  It clearly wasn't this one.

    Hispanic (none / 0) (#216)
    by coast on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 07:32:16 PM EST
    Is an ethnicity, not a race.  So it could have been an all white jury.  At least that is what the USCB and various media outlets would say.

    Parent
    Juror B37 thought rioting (5.00 / 3) (#155)
    by DennisD on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 02:38:57 PM EST
    had happened in Sanford before Zimmerman's arrest. I think that can lead some to think her view of black people is not exactly, let's say, neutral. Moreover, racism can be very subtle or even subconscious so whether it did or didn't play a role in making a particular judgment can be very hard to say.

    While you can't take her word for it, I find it interesting that she said there were some jurors that were looking to find Zimmerman guilty of something. I'd like to hear from those jurors.

    Yes, actually... (5.00 / 2) (#182)
    by unitron on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 05:03:53 PM EST

    "I'm sure you know of many many suited burglars w/briefcases."

    ...but they're all on Wall Street.

    The jury was originally split (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 05:06:48 PM EST
    guilty/not guilty.  The idea that this was an absolute slam dunk is a bit much.  In any event, it was a tough to prove case.  I think it is a case that should have been brought and still think so.

    And again, all it takes is a civil case and Zimmerman losing to take the wind out of most of the definitive "Zimmerman did absolutely nothing wrong" type statements we are reading here.

    All we know is that the state was not able to prove to these juror's the case beyond a reasonable doubt.   He is innocent of state criminal charges.

    But so is OJ, Richard Blake, and Casey Anthony.

    I take it that those so definitive also believe each of those three is innocent and without blame simply because they were acquitted.

    Assuming consistency that is.
     

    Maybe, but (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by jbindc on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 05:16:18 PM EST
    The jury was originally split (none / 0) (#184)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 05:06:48 PM EST

    guilty/not guilty.

    That was before they read the jury instructions and the law.  Not a good example.

    Parent

    In a civil suit... (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by unitron on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 05:48:28 PM EST
    ...a lot of stuff about Trayvon and his family comes in that didn't in the criminal trial, stuff that reinforces the possibility that Martin struck first.

    Plus they'd have to wait until Zimmerman wins a few civil suits of his own before he has enough money to make suing him worthwhile.

    If they've already got a judgement that says when he gets money from NBC it goes to them, I don't think he'd bother going ahead with the case against NBC.

    Parent

    I wasn't dodging anything, other than (4.20 / 5) (#99)
    by Anne on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 12:34:28 PM EST
    Darby's garbled comments, and trying to make sense of what she was saying that Corey said, and thinking it must have had something to do with the jury instructions - which is why I quoted from them, in the belief that perhaps it would help Darby make sense of what Corey said.

    I still don't know what Corey actually said - I looked for a transcript, but couldn't find one - and I am honestly confused about what Darby's saying and sorry I tried to be of any help.

    Now, you can take that at the face value with which I've presented it, or you can continue to distinguish yourself as the poster who thinks his/her a$$ is a hat: your choice.

    Thanks in advance for the 1's.

    ish (2.33 / 6) (#165)
    by TeresaInPa on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 03:28:14 PM EST
    Anne, you have argued about GZ's injuries with pretty much everyone now.  His injuries didn't have to be life threatening.  He just had to feel like the next one might be.  In fact as Jeralyn and other lawyers have said time and again, he didn't need to have a single injury and he still could have shot TM in self defense.  You watched the trial right?  If you didn't why do you continue to argue with a verdict you couldn't possibly understand having not watched?  ..... I mean I think you must have watched, because here you are every day arguing over minutia that you have seen and read and watched explained to you over and over and over and over.  

    Start here:  GZ didn't even need one single solitary injury to plead self defense.  The injuries he had did not have to be life threatening or close to life threatening and he didn't have to think they were.  He only needed to think the next one, in other words, the one coming, was going to kill him or leave him with great bodily harm. All the rest of it was for show, on both sides.  It was also to prove who was beating who.

    Parent

    "reasonable fear" (3.67 / 3) (#166)
    by MKS on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 03:35:16 PM EST
    He had to both actually and reasonably fear great bodily injury.

    To each his own, if you think what happened to Zimmerman qualifies...

    Parent

    Let's all get this straight (5.00 / 2) (#195)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 06:17:30 PM EST
    He had to believe  deadly force was necessary to prevent imminent great bodily harm or death

    A person is justified in using deadly force if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself.

    His belief had to be reasonable, which means a reasonable person facing the same circumstances would believe that deadly force was necessary to prevent imminent great bodily or harm.

    Zimmerman's belief did not have to be accurate. The danger need not have been real. Zimmerman just had to really believe it was real.

    In deciding whether defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you must judge him by the circumstances by which he was surrounded at the time the force was used. The danger facing the defendant need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. Based upon appearances, the defendant must have actually believed that the danger was real.

    Fear isn't even mentioned. It's a belief one is in danger of imminent harm. Fear is an emotion. The instructions speak to a belief, which I think is more of a state of mind. People use them interchangeably on this subject, but I think it helps to leave the fear word out.


    Parent

    Here's something maybe you can (4.00 / 3) (#2)
    by Anne on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 08:47:39 AM EST
    help me with, Jeralyn; I'm sure there's an answer - and you may have already provided it in another post, so apologies in advance if I missed it.

    I note that the juror talks about George being credible.  What struck me about that is that his credibility came only from statements and interviews and the re-enactment, and none of what he said or demonstrated in them was subject to cross-examination.  In effect, it seems like George got to indirectly tell his story, with no obligation - as was his right - to testify in the actual proceeding, and no opportunity to be challenged or questioned about his version of the events.

    I get that the state had the burden of proof, but I don't understand why, once the statements are entered into evidence, they are not also considered a form of testimony subject to cross-examination.  Is it because these materials were entered into evidence by the state?

    I may be over-thinking this, but the juror's reference to the credibility of someone who never took the stand kind of bothered me.


    another miscalculation by the state (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 08:49:32 AM EST
    It never should have introduced those statements. If it didn't move them into evidence, they would have been kept out as self-serving hearsay. Zimmerman would have had to testify if he wanted his version before the jury.

    Parent
    Wow...that seems like a major (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Anne on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 08:54:33 AM EST
    strategic blunder on their part.

    Or maybe I should say, another strategic blunder, because they seem to be piling up.

    Parent

    They had to (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by cboldt on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 09:08:47 AM EST
    The lynchpin of the state's argument was that Zimmerman was inconsistent.  In order to proves that to the jury, they had to introduce evidence the showed Zimmerman's inconsistencies.  In order to show the depraved, they had to introduce the NEN call with "fscking punks" "and "those a$$holes."

    If they don't produce that evidence, what would they have as evidence?  Only the inconsistent eyewitnesses, some of which are limited by ability to view the event as well as assumptions resulting from press reports, and Lauer's 911 call, and their pathologist.

    There would be an argument over "got out of the car to get an address," because the only source of that evidence is Zimmerman's statement.

    Parent

    Not so sure (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by MKS on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 11:38:29 AM EST
    They could introduce the 911 tapes without introducing the interviews and re-enactment.

    With Rachel Jeantell's testimony, I think Zimmerman would be forced to testify.

    It would have been a different trial for sure, and one heck of call for O'Mara whether to have Zimmerman testify.  As it was, it was a no-brainer on having him testify.  

    Parent

    It's the after the shooting interviews (none / 0) (#196)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 06:22:20 PM EST
    not the non-emergency call that happened before the shooting lawyers are referring to as excludable unless he testifies in his own defense, because they are deemed self-serving hearsay and because the state isn't given the opportunity to cross-examine him.

    Parent
    Yeah, I thought about that, too... (none / 0) (#13)
    by Anne on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 09:18:26 AM EST
    was trying to figure out how they would have proved their case without those statements (especially since the jury didn't feel they proved it with the statements).  And I guess they didn't like their chances if they had tried to call the defense's bluff where Zimmerman's possible testimony was concerned.

    Parent
    Anne, give it up (1.71 / 7) (#16)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 09:26:05 AM EST
    The trial is over.

    Justice has won.

    Parent

    I thought it was a good question, and one (5.00 / 4) (#24)
    by Anne on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 09:33:22 AM EST
    I was interested in knowing the answer to.  I asked a criminal defense lawyer, and she responded.  Another poster pointed out that, without the statements, it would have been hard to make the state's case, and I agreed.

    I wasn't questioning justice, jim, but I do question whether your comments serve any purpose other than to annoy the crap out of people, because they are wholly lacking in substance.

    Do you think you could give that up, jim?

    Parent

    Anne, this was discussed tonight (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 09:44:19 AM EST
    by Jeffrey Toobin and Mark Geragos and they both laughed saying it was one of the few times they agreed. It's a valid question.

    Parent
    Yeah, I don't think they had much choice (none / 0) (#169)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 03:50:46 PM EST
    once they decided to go forward with a prosecution. Some jurors might have found him less believable.

    Parent
    He DIdn't Need His Version in Front of the Jury (none / 0) (#10)
    by RickyJim on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 09:05:08 AM EST
    The screams, the injuries, John Good's testimony and Martin's body being found and photographed next to the sidewalk are enough to show it was reasonable that Zimmerman had a reasonable fear of great bodily harm if he didn't shoot.  And Bernie wouldn't have been able to do a "Why did he lie?" without the transcripts in evidence.  I agree it would have been a better tactical play to try to get Zimmerman to testify instead of guaranteeing he wouldn't.

    Parent
    The truth is Zimmerman did NOTHING wrong. (4.00 / 3) (#64)
    by Kplaids on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 11:45:14 AM EST
    Jeralyn,
    I found your forum because of your appearance on CNN the other day.  It was like that guy with the lantern finding an honest man.  Of course, Don Lemon didn't want to let you speak.

    I watched the trial and thank God the jury was sequestered or for sure the media would have succeeded in imposing on them that they needed to find Zimmerman guilty of something.  

    He did nothing wrong.  This juror still wants to find him guilty of something, too.  Bad judgement.  ????   He got out of his vehicle in his own neighborhood.  He walked at 7 pm in his own neighborhood.  He was a member of Neighborhood Watch.  Thats his bad judgement.

    The facts are that Z either didn't go very far into the complex or he was on his way back to his vehicle and not following Martin.  Those are the only explanations for why the incident occurred so close to his vehicle (150 ft, wasn't it?).

    He tells the dispatcher Martin is running and that he's lost sight of Martin.  

    Four minutes elapse until the incident (per Lauers 911 and Jeantel's last phone call dropping off).

    WHAT did Z do wrong?  When I learned of that big time gap over a year ago, it was clear that the only way this could have happened was that Martin doubled back to attack Z.  

    You are so right about how this will affect the issue of "race" in America, which really is all about the situation between black people and the rest of the country, to be blunt.  What we see from black commentators and from Obama and Holder and the NAACP and whoever is that they WILL NOT deal with the facts but expect that everyone pander to their amour propre notions of black victimization.  NOt to do so is racism or showing disrespect.  

    Best to stay away.   Look how much danger they are capable of wishing on you.  They'd have loved to put Zimmerman in prison for 30 years because he got out of his car and walked in his own neighborhood.

    The prosecution focused on one thing he did wrong (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by Harold on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 02:28:42 PM EST
    But not in the way they though.

    It's pretty clear to me that Zimmerman was not expecting an assault.  While from the NEN call it's clear he was worried about an adversary overhearing him, I think his "they always get away" in part clues us into his likely assuming, like in past incidents, that the ... suspect (in his viewpoint) would avoid contact.  Knowing that he'd gotten the police on their way probably contributed to that ... but it's very possible Martin didn't know that (I don't have any mental model for where Martin would have been when that was being discussed).

    In other words, if you accept Zimmerman's narrative, in the end Martin did not follow any of the patterns the former was accustomed to.

    Parent

    What GZ (none / 0) (#209)
    by Char Char Binks on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 06:54:41 PM EST
    did wrong was let down his guard.  You're right, he thought that TM ran away and was no longer a danger.  He probably also felt safe because he was near his vehicle, and knew the police were likely to arrive soon.

    Parent
    A few observations from (3.25 / 4) (#50)
    by brodie on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 11:09:18 AM EST
    a mere civilian who caught more of the trial aftermath than the trial:

    1. far too few people on a jury deciding important issues about one person's fate, some of whom (e.g. the decidedly pro-GZ juror interviewed last night on Cooper Anderson) seem to have been poorly vetted by the prosecution in voir-dire;

    2. the jury, given the evidence presented, the instructions and the peculiar strategy of the prosecution not to give them a clear scenario of what might have happened that night, may well have properly decided its verdict of non coupable.

    3. the prosecution was so outlawyered, 90% of the time it seems, that one almost suspects an overall strategy, signaled from on high, just to go for an appearance of vigorously prosecuting the case.  Of course, it could also mean the prosecution was just relatively incompetent compared to the defense, and was not trying to deliberately put on a ruse.

    4. race was an important underlying factor, even as it went overtly unacknowledged by those concerned.

    5. AG Holder is in a tough spot as it appears a federal civ rights prosecution may be a tough battle legally


    The (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by morphic on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 11:41:39 AM EST
    The real problem for the prosecutors was the evidence. Multiple witnesses claimed the confrontation begin west of the T, than moved south. Zimmerman claimed he was returning to his truck when the confrontation occurred. Well,if you believe the witnesses, he was near his truck, not somewhere else, chasing after Martin for  several minutes. There's no way to prove their claims beyond wishful thinking and hysteria. IMO.

    Parent
    Exactly (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Kplaids on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 12:09:33 PM EST
    Either Z didn't follow very far into the complex or he was returning to his truck when Martin attacked him.  Can't have it some other way because of the location of the event, like 150 ft from his vehicle (if I remember correctly).  Thats less than the length of my driveway.  If I walk the length of my driveway to see whats happening on the other side of the road, am I doing something wrong?  

    Of course, after this, you can't do that.  You have to stay in your home and call the police, who will take 15 minutes to get here.  

    Parent

    Did (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by morphic on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 12:33:36 PM EST
    you catch Rachel Jeantel on CNN last night? She basically claimed that Trayvon ran because he thought George Zimmerman was a security guard and was talking on  the phone to the police,

    Parent
    Morphic is dead wrong (2.00 / 1) (#174)
    by Adirolf on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 04:01:58 PM EST
    Jeantel said just the opposite...that Z was ACTING like a security person, i.e., a wannabe. That was obvious from the words that a real security person would come up and ask what TM was doing.

    From CNN transcript:
    MORGAN: It means he thought it was a policeman or security guard.

    JEANTEL: Acting like a policeman, and then he keep telling me that the man still watching him.

    So if it was a security guard or a policeman, they would come up to Trayvon and say, do you have -- do you need a problem? Do you have a problem? Do you need help? You know? Like normal people.

    Parent

    is unclear.

    Parent
    Think about it (none / 0) (#158)
    by lily on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 03:04:39 PM EST
    Trayvon had 4 minutes after running from the street through the cut through down the tee. GZ was still talking to dispatch for 2 or those 4 minutes. TM waited to GZ hung up with the cops before confronting him for reporting him.

    just as I suspected back in March 2012

    Jeantel is the type to keep talking, she will expose more of the cultural clash as she did when discussing whoop ass, as if all "old school' women don't know what mollywhooped means.

    Parent

    What B-37 (3.00 / 2) (#43)
    by MKS on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 10:56:56 AM EST
    showed was a remarkable pre-disposition to accept the defense narrative.

    She was extraordinarily sympathetic to Zimmerman.  

    When she was asked if she also felt sorry for  Martin, she hesitated and said she felt bad for both of them.

    Jeffrey Toobin found this remarkable.  Trayvon Martin is dead.  She equated the two. (She had said she knew Trayvon was a "boy of color" druing voir dire. Actually, she was far more sympathetic to Zimmerman than Martin.

    Mark Garragos said that the case was lost in jury selection and juror B-37 proved that.  When pressed by Toobin, Garragos said that it was clear that none of the jurors could place themselves in Trayvon's shoes or empathize with him because of demographics--race.  Garragos then went on quite tear about race being a factor in our system.  Racial make-up of juries is the whole ballgame.

    B-37 of course would see everything in a pro-defense light. She would remember every favorable fact and disregard every adverse fact.  That is what bias does.

    perhaps B37 (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by ding7777 on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 11:47:27 AM EST
    believed in the defendant's presumption of innocence and the State did not prove its burden beyond a reasonable doubt

    Parent
    She showed a remarkable predisposition (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by Char Char Binks on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 11:51:39 AM EST
    to presume GZ innocent, which is exactly what every juror should start with.

    Parent
    She believed Martin attacked Zimmerman (1.00 / 2) (#76)
    by Kplaids on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 11:57:08 AM EST
    So how would one expect her to feel towards Martin?  He was a violent attacker who punched a stranger to the ground, straddled him and beat the stranger's head on the concrete and Toobin is surprised this juror isn't sympathetic?

    One of the Alice in Wonderland moments of this case, for sure.

    I keep wishing there was a machine that we could see people like Toobin, Hostin, Geragos et al hooked up to that would pound their heads on concrete and how fast they'd pull the trigger.  Anyone thing they'd cry for help for 45 seconds like Z did?  

    Parent

    You assume the Zimmerman (5.00 / 3) (#80)
    by MKS on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 12:01:30 PM EST
    narrative is true--that he is telling the truth.  

    And, true, I do see too many people having difficulty having any sympathy for a dead boy.  

    Parent

    what you should see is (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 06:29:48 PM EST
    lawyers dispassionately dissecting the state's case in light of the charge it brought and the evidence it presented. It's not our role to make moral judgments.

    Parent
    because (none / 0) (#194)
    by TeresaInPa on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 06:13:43 PM EST
    of the evidence and the testimony.  Even the prosecution accepts the scenario.  Why are you still stuck on not accepting it?

    Parent
    What I Find More Remarkable (none / 0) (#48)
    by RickyJim on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 11:05:21 AM EST
    is that Toobin, Geragos and the others don't propose any changes in the jury system.  They just complain just like they did after the OJ verdict 18 years ago.

    Parent
    We all believe the system works (none / 0) (#198)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 06:26:42 PM EST
    whether you agree or not is another matter. Cheney Mason was also on CNN last night and said he's never doubted the jury system we have works, even when he has lost cases.

    You continually use any avenue to try and direct the conversation to a discussion of the system in other countries. That is not, and has never been, relevant to this case. I continually point this out to you and you keep doing it.

    Parent

    And this was exactly the kind of juror (none / 0) (#49)
    by Anne on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 11:06:26 AM EST
    the defense wanted, no?  

    It's why I raised the question of George's statements and the reenactment being allowed to have the effect of testimony, without the challenge of cross-examination; note how often this juror says, "George said," as if he had testified.

    Seems to me that if the state's case was weak to begin with, it was incumbent upon them to buttress it with better jury selection and better decisions about what, exactly, their argument was.  When even laypeople can see a shift in strategy and argument, that is not a good thing.

    In a perfect world, justice really would be blind, but when you see all the myriad things that factor into that moment when a verdict is announced, you know that it isn't.  Each side does the best job it can to make sure justice sees it their way, and in this case, I think the state failed in some pretty significant ways.

    As I said to someone else, it isn't up to the jury to fix the problems in the state's case, but that seems to be what people expect.

    Parent

    What do you mean pre-disposition. (none / 0) (#100)
    by Darby on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 12:37:30 PM EST
    It is okay for her to be on Zimmermanas 'side' after the trial.  Obviously not before.  It seems you are claiming she was noT impartial.? If so, why?

    Parent
    She referred to Trayvon (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by MKS on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 12:58:02 PM EST
    as a "boy of color" during jury selection.

    After the trial, she could have found Zimmerman not guilty but still have sympathy for and see Martin as human.  She appeared to have great difficulty empathizing with Trayvon.  She felt very sorry for Zimmerman and his ordeal, but no so much for Martin who was the one who was killed.

    Toobin was aghast on CNN.  He said Trayvon was dead and Zimmerman was "inconvenienced."  Yet, George gets all the sympathy.

    Parent

    Toobin is agast (5.00 / 0) (#199)
    by TeresaInPa on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 06:29:24 PM EST
    Oh NOOOOO!!  He can't believe that she could show sympathy for Zimmerman?  What a tool.

    So tell me, have you never heard people use the expression "people of color"?  Do you get your superman undies all in a twist when, let's say, President Obama uses the term?

    Cooper was trying to get her to reveal something that would peg her as unsympathetic.  She said she was sorry for them both.  She didn't say she was sorry for them both equally.
    Seriously, just get over it.  This obsession with race and all the manufactured outrage is getting way beyond silly.

    Parent

    I think you are too biased (none / 0) (#123)
    by Darby on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 01:17:33 PM EST
    To hear everything she said.  She wept over trayvons death, both in her interview I think and during deliberations. She Never indicated that Martin wasn't human!

    Parent
    She said she wept after (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by MKS on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 01:24:55 PM EST
    the process was over.  Never heard her say she was crying for Trayvon.  She was crying about the pressure of the process....and I am not unsympathetic to her....

    The Prosecution should have struck her based on her answers during jury selection.....

    Parent

    Here is what she said (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by Darby on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 01:33:35 PM EST
    JUROR: It was emotional to a point, but after we had put our vote in and the bailiff had taken our vote, that's when everybody started to cry.

    COOPER: Tell me about that.

    JUROR: It was just hard, thinking that somebody lost their life, and there's nothing else that could be done about it. I mean, it's what happened. It's sad. It's a tragedy this happened, but it happened. And I think both were responsible for the situation they had gotten themselves into. I think both of them could have walked away. It just didn't happen.

    COOPER: It's still emotional for you?

    JUROR: It is, it's very emotional.

    COOPER: Can you explain the emotion?

    JUROR: It's just sad that we all had to come together and figure out what is going to happen to this man's life afterwards. You find him not guilty, but you're responsible for that not guilty. And all the people that want him guilty aren't going to have any closure.

    COOPER: Do you feel sorry for Trayvon Martin?

    JUROR: I feel sorry for both of them. I feel sorry for Trayvon, in the situation he was in. And I feel sorry for George because of the situation he got himself in.

    Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/07/15/3502047_p4/zimmerman-juror-speaks-out-transcript.html#storylin k=cpy

    Parent

    Yes, exactly (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by MKS on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 02:57:19 PM EST
    Also, listen to the awkward hesitation after she is asked if she feels sorry for Trayvon.  She couldn't just say "yes."

    And the "situation" Trayvon was in?  He was not in a "situation."  He was shot dead.  Big difference from Zimmerman's superficial injuries. But she equates the two.

    Parent

    She cried about Trayvon (none / 0) (#135)
    by txantimedia on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 01:35:14 PM EST
    during her interview.  Go view it.

    Parent
    This (5.00 / 4) (#183)
    by morphic on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 05:05:21 PM EST
    whole discussion amounts to blaming the jury, when the real problem is the prosecutors.

    Parent
    People... (none / 0) (#167)
    by DebFrmHell on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 03:41:58 PM EST
    keep repeating the "boy of color" statement but I have not heard that before and when asking for a citation none is ever given.

    Parent
    With all due respect... (2.67 / 3) (#5)
    by Dadler on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 08:51:52 AM EST
    ...to suggest from this juror that race didn't play a factor in this case is just, IMO, not living on this planet. There is a desperation to it that seems out of place. It is quite possible (and daily life tells us it is most likely) that George Zimmerman was acquitted and that the country, citizens, jurors, judge, attorneys on both sides, are still profoundly phucked up and incapable of coming to terms with the extent to which race infects our daily lives, and most profoundly on a level we aren't generally conscious of. The ugly truth is always the one we try to avoid or deny. If there is a case with ugly truths, come on, this is it on all sides, race certainly among them.

    the juror says it wasn't discussed (5.00 / 4) (#8)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 08:55:58 AM EST
    She said she viewed the case as a murder case.

    It was not a race case. It was turned into a race case by the media and the Martins' lawyers.

    Parent

    also you do a disservice to those who are (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 09:01:28 AM EST
    adversely impacted by the racial disparity in our justice system when you try to make this case about race. How many lawyers do you have to hear this from? Geragos, O'Mara, West and many others are all saying the same thing I've been saying: The problems are real and systemic and need to be fixed. No one knows that better than defense lawyers who fight against the disparity and arbitrary enforcement for minority clients every day. It's just that this case isn't one of those cases.

    Parent
    Jeralyn, I can appreciate what you do (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by vicndabx on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 09:28:22 AM EST
    and understand you have experience that others do not.  

    How can you believe this isn't one of those cases when other suspects in RTL crimes were black?  Even I would be suspicious of other blacks were the alleged perpetrators black.  I.e. one of the issues w/r/t race is how you act w/that information in your mind.

    Just because GZ wasn't some klan member doesn't meant there aren't race issues here.

    Parent

    Profiling is not racial profiling (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by woodchuck64 on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 10:11:14 AM EST

    How can you believe this isn't one of those cases when other suspects in RTL crimes were black?  Even I would be suspicious of other blacks were the alleged perpetrators black.

    You would suspicious of a black man with a suit and briefcase walking briskly to the bus stop?  I doubt that very much.  Profiling is not racial profiling.


    Parent

    Were you not paying attention? (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by txantimedia on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 12:54:38 PM EST
    Did you not notice that Zimmerman had black neighbors who thought highly of him?  Do you really think he profiled people because of color?  Then why wouldn't he call the police about his neighbors?

    BECAUSE THEY WEREN"T DOING ANYTHING SUSPICIOUS.

    This case is not about race.  To make it about race, as Jeralyn points out, is a disservice to blacks who are truly treated unfairly by the justice system.

    Parent

    It is when you assume a person is a criminal (3.00 / 2) (#38)
    by vicndabx on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 10:32:41 AM EST
    merely because other people in that group are criminals.

    of course I would not suspect a person in a suit to be a burglar.  I don't understand your point.

    Parent

    And you are assuming (1.00 / 1) (#40)
    by jbindc on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 10:45:07 AM EST
    Six female jurors, none of whom are black, were incapable of delivering a fair verdict because you don't like the way it turned out.

    Parent
    Move on (5.00 / 0) (#45)
    by vicndabx on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 11:00:49 AM EST
    I'm not talking about the verdict.  Read the thread.  I'm talking about whether this case involves race.  Specifically, I'm referencing the juror who said the entire group did not even consider race - which seems to bolster my argument that said jury was unable to even see that aspect of the case.

    As much as you want to believe it was so, it apparently was not.  I wanted to believe it too, sadly, this juror confirms that was not the case.

    Parent

    It's not that the jury... (5.00 / 2) (#181)
    by unitron on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 05:02:42 PM EST
    ...was unable to see the racial aspect of the case, it's that they were able to see that race was not really an aspect of the case.

    (It was an aspect of the hype and the political pressure, but that's not the same thing)

    If Zimmerman is to be believed, Martin first attracted his attention by where he was and what he was doing.

    If he'd been in the same place doing the same thing but wearing a suit and tie and carrying a briefcase and obviously white, do you think Zimmerman wouldn't still have found his location and actions worthy of scrutiny?

    Parent

    Please, John Guy told them in closing (5.00 / 2) (#202)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 06:33:47 PM EST
    "Race. This case is not about race. It's about right and wrong. It's that simple."

    You are going to fault them for not considering race when both sides told them it was not a factor and the judge said nothing about race in her instructions?  

    Parent

    Are we saying... (none / 0) (#208)
    by Thanin on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 06:49:22 PM EST
    That these 6 people are completely devoid of all racial bias?

    Parent
    of course not (none / 0) (#214)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 07:14:57 PM EST
    no one is free of all bias. You wouldn't get a jury in any case for any defendant if that were the test. A juror just has to be able to make their decision based on the facts and evidence produced at trial and  the instructions from the judge, and nothing else. Not from sympathy for the victim, the arguments of counsel, their feelings of like or dislike for any of the participants,  or anything else not presented in court.

    Parent
    So (3.50 / 2) (#47)
    by jbindc on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 11:04:54 AM EST
    Specifically, I'm referencing the juror who said the entire group did not even consider race - which seems to bolster my argument that said jury was unable to even see that aspect of the case.

    Then she's a liar?  You know this, how?

    Parent

    It is more complicated (5.00 / 4) (#55)
    by MKS on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 11:29:38 AM EST
    than whether a person is conscious of race.

    Race can play a factor even though the person is not self aware of that fact.  There are all kinda of implicit racism.  Harvard has a series of test about hidden, unarticulated assumptions on race.  Take one and see.

    B-37 was completely sincere. I am sure she believes race played no role. But she was completely biased in favor of "George" whom she said she would have no problem being on her neighborhood watch.  She was biased against the "boy of color."

    Trayvon Martin barely existed in her universe.  When asked by Anderson Cooper if she also felt sorry for Trayvon Martin, she hesitated and said she felt sorry for both of them.  It was like pulling teeth to get her to admit any sympathy for Trayvon.  Toobin was flabbergasted.  Trayvon Martin was dead and she equated that with "George."  Why could she not have just said, "yes" she also felt sorry for the "boy of color?"   It was all about George for her.  

    Racism can come in many different flavors.  It is not just about having an overt hatred of someone because of their race.  It is also about unconscious stereotyping, hidden assumptions, and whether you can empathize with someone of a different race as well as someone of your own race.    

     

    Parent

    Let's be clear (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by vicndabx on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 11:45:22 AM EST
    I honestly believe with the right jury, this case could've gone either way.  Emphasis on right jury.  That is, one that can could consider the state's argument to begin with.  Heck, this jury struggled w/the instructions - which, IMO, in spite of all the clamor otherwise, don't seem that confusing.  All it takes is slow reading.  That being said, if the jury doesn't believe there was any profiling - which on it's face is ludicrous, something is wrong w/their perspective.

    I'll put it to you like this - I doubt many here would be OK w/a jury of all men in trial where a man was accused of raping a woman.  Or, a jury full of black women in a trial of a white man accused of killing a black woman.  We all have biases.  Juries should be representative of the populace to afford both sides the opportunity to explore all the aspects of a case in order to provide justice.  Otherwise, it comes off looking like a sham.

    No, I don't think anyone is lying.  In fact, it is the truth that has come out that is so shocking.

    Parent

    Bolster Your Argument (none / 0) (#68)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 11:47:33 AM EST
    Specifically, I'm referencing the juror who said the entire group did not even consider race - which seems to bolster my argument that said jury was unable to even see that aspect of the case.

    And does this viewpoint also bolster your case coming from someone who is fighting against a racially biased system up front and close on a daily basis:

    also you do a disservice to those who are adversely impacted by the racial disparity in our justice system when you try to make this case about race. How many lawyers do you have to hear this from? Geragos, O'Mara, West and many others are all saying the same thing I've been saying: The problems are real and systemic and need to be fixed. No one knows that better than defense lawyers who fight against the disparity and arbitrary enforcement for minority clients every day. It's just that this case isn't one of those cases.


    Parent
    What does that have to do with anything? (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by vicndabx on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 01:31:55 PM EST
    I'm certain the defendants our host has represented are appreciative of her services.  I've not taken away from or been disrespectful to our host at all.

    Fact of the matter is, this is not just about the criminal justice system.  This is about attitudes and lack of understanding people have toward one another inside and outside of court.  That lack of understanding and denigration of that which doesn't fit preconceptions of "normal" is the root cause here.  Fear is the end result, harsh criminal sentences a symptom.

    To not talk about it now is a wasted opportunity.  The conversation needs to be ongoing.  

    Parent

    Disagree (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 01:44:15 PM EST
    To not talk about it now is a wasted opportunity.  The conversation needs to be ongoing

    I will take Jeralyn's advice here and not engage in using this case to discuss civil rights in America. And the fact that there is racism, sexism and other biases in America means that we should be talking about it, not this case though in those terms.

    The case is not about racism, and using it do discuss racism serves as divisive not coming together. Those arguing about race in this case are 99% misstating most of the facts, and could care less about anything but proving that racism is either justified or endemic and horrible.

    Parent

    I keep saying the defense picked a (5.00 / 2) (#212)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 07:08:52 PM EST
    great jury and praising Robert Hirschhorn, the defense jury selection expert. Of course a different jury might have seen it differently. And maybe not. We'll never know, we have only this jury.

    This is why we have challenges for cause and peremptory challenges. It's to identify and then exclude jurors who are not favorable to our position on the issues in the case. I don't know how many more times I can say that.

    Since my interest in this case is in the legal dynamics, and I don't think this case is representative of discrimination minority defendants face in the criminal justice system, I don't care what another jury might have found. What happened in this case from my point of view is that a skilled defense team and jury consultant prevented a major injustice that would have resulted in a man spending the rest of his life in prison.

    The Bill of Rights was designed to protect the citizen accused of crime, not crime victims. The right to a fair jury and jury of one's peers is a right of the defendant, not the crime victim.

    Crime victims have their own statutes to protect their interests. The constitutional right to a fair and impartial jury belongs to the defendant.

    Parent

    If that jury had discussed race (none / 0) (#177)
    by TeresaInPa on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 04:10:43 PM EST
    in what context would it have been justified?  It would not have been appropriate to the task they had in front of them.

    Parent
    You just confirmed her argument (1.00 / 1) (#91)
    by txantimedia on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 12:16:49 PM EST
    If you would not consider a black person in a suit and tie a criminal, then clearly your determination is not based on the race but dress and behavior.

    Why is it so hard for you to understand that when you see someone with pants below their butt, dreadlocks and tats all over you think criminal REGARDLESS OF THEIR RACE.  And please don't tell me that no white people are described by this, because I have personally seen them and thought exactly the same thing about them that I do of blacks dressed similarly when they behave like criminals.

    It's NOT about race.  It's about behavior and dress patterns regardless of race.

    Parent

    are you describing TM? (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by ZtoA on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 12:31:40 PM EST
    "pants below their butt, dreadlocks and tats all over "

    Parent
    Obviously not (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by txantimedia on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 01:52:55 PM EST
    His behavior was what caught Zimmerman's attention, not his dress.  Please point to one single thing that Zimmerman said about his clothing in the context of his suspicions.

    This guy looks like he's up to no good or he's on drugs or sumpum. It's raining and he's just walking around looking about.

    0:25 Dispatcher: OK. And this guy, is he white, black or Hispanic?

    0:29 Zimmerman: He looks black.

    0:30 Dispatcher: Did you see what he was wearing?

    0:33 Zimmerman: Yeah, a, a dark hoodie, like a grey hoodie and either jeans or sweatpants and white tennis shoes. He's here now and


    Notice how the description of what he was wearing never entered in to George's assessment until he was specifically asked that question?  His suspicions were based upon how and where he was walking and his behavior, not his dress, not his race, not his hairdo (which he couldn't have seen anyway.)

    Parent
    WTF?! (3.50 / 2) (#104)
    by vicndabx on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 12:44:27 PM EST
    I see people w/tats and pants hanging low and dreadlocks all the time.  Fact is how someone looks doesn't make them a criminal.  I don't assume anyone is a criminal, unless I see them actually you know, breaking the law.

    How does one "behave like a criminal" w/o actually committing a crime?

    I had no idea dreadlocks = criminal.  Amazing, and you are a Zimmerman supporter or a juror B37 viewpoint supporter.  I'm reminded of something posted a few days back about every so often you get a peek behind the veil.

    Parent

    If you misrepresent what I said (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by txantimedia on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 02:02:04 PM EST
    then your claims about me are invalid.  You ignored the fact that I specifically said "behaves like a criminal".  The dress enters into the equation because that's how many criminals dress.

    People wear uniforms, whether they want to admit it or not.  I've always chuckled about how young people "rebel" by dressing alike, behaving alike and listening to the same music.  (Goths, for example.)

    Ff you see a guy in a suit, leaning over the door of a car talking to someone, you might think he's have a conversation about something.

    If you see a guy with his butt hanging out leaning over a car talking to someone, you might think he could be conducting a drug transaction.

    If the suit guy accepts money from the driver, you might think he was getting a loan or being repaid a debt.

    If the butt guy (for lack of a better description) does it, you might think he's being paid for selling drugs.

    Notice how I never mentioned race?

    If you see a guy wearing a motorcycle jacket with chains attached to his wallet, a beard and tattoos all over, what do you think?  Oh, he's probably CEO of Amex?  No, you think he's probably a member of a motorcycle gang.

    Please don't insult our intelligence by claiming you never make such judgments.  Everybody does, and everybody does it.

    And I'm not a Zimmerman supporter, a B37 supporter or anything else, except, like Jeralyn, I can see facts without injecting my biases into them.

    Parent

    race (none / 0) (#41)
    by woodchuck64 on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 10:47:58 AM EST

    of course I would not suspect a person in a suit to be a burglar.

    If you would not suspect a black man in a suit of being a burglar, but you would suspect a black man in a hoodie of being a burglar, than race plays no significant factor in your profile, it's that simple.  That summarizes the Zimmerman case.  Many other factors besides race were more important to his criminal profile.  Therefore this was not a case primarily about race.


    Parent

    Beyond that (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by vicndabx on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 10:43:02 AM EST
    even if you believe that GZ just profiled everybody (which I do not) there's still the matter of what the jury will deem important based on their own experiences.  Six different interpretations informed by what they think a young black man should/should not do when confronted by a person who is not another young black man in the South.

    As I've said from the beginning, context is everything here.  To think that this case is simply about "the law" is to deny reality of life in the South.

    Parent

    The south has nothing to do with this (none / 0) (#114)
    by txantimedia on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 12:56:53 PM EST
    unless you seriously believe that there's no racism in the north.  Please don't make me post examples.

    Parent
    Geragos last night (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by MKS on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 11:03:40 AM EST
    said something remarkable on CNN last night. It left the other guests speechless.  He had been berating those who thought guilty verdict was possible.

    He said the case was lost in jury selection.  When asked by Toobin what he meant, he said it was about race and demographics.  As B-37 showed, he said, the jury was not able to empathize with Trayvon Martin because of race.

    He then went on quite a tear about racial makeups of juries and African Americans having no chance in front of white juries.

    Parent

    Diversity and juries really don't work ... (1.00 / 1) (#77)
    by redwolf on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 11:58:14 AM EST
    well. Once people feel themselves separate groups it ends up being my tribe vs their tribe and people vote accordingly.

    Parent
    Is this your personal opinion (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by MKS on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 12:18:22 PM EST
    against diversity, or you actually have a valid reason for this comment?

    Parent
    Outlandish comment (none / 0) (#88)
    by shoephone on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 12:12:18 PM EST
    feelings (none / 0) (#74)
    by ding7777 on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 11:53:57 AM EST
    As B-37 showed, he said, the jury was not able to empathize with Trayvon Martin because of race.

    Do you want a jury to be a trier of facts or feelings?

    He then went on quite a tear about racial makeups of juries and African Americans having no chance in front of white juries

    Which has nothing to do with the Zimmerman trial since GZ is not African-American.

    Parent

    Actually, GZ is part AA, which disproves (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 12:00:13 PM EST
    the premise that AA's have "no chance" in front of white juries.

    Parent
    Just rhetorical gimmickry (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by MKS on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 12:10:24 PM EST
    The jurors had no information to suggest that Zimmerman was Africa American.

    Appearance matters in how you are treated.  That you can go back on a family tree chart and show something doesn't really address the issue.  If you look white, you get treated like you are white.

    Ask any African American lawyer about getting a cab in Manhattan.

    Parent

    Huh? (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by txantimedia on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 01:16:14 PM EST
    "Ask any African American lawyer about getting a cab in Manhattan."

    Most of the cab drivers in New York are from foreign extraction.  Are you contending that they are importing racism?  Or did you mistakenly assume they were all white racists?

    http://www.schallerconsult.com/taxi/taxidriver.pdf

    "82% of drivers in the New York metro area were foreign born in 2000."

    "23% of New York City taxi/limo drivers were from the West Indies (primarily the
    Dominican Republic and Haiti) and 20% were from South Asia (Pakistan, India and Bangladesh)."

    "Bangladesh has replaced Pakistan is the number one country of origin of medallion cab drivers in New York City. In the last two years, 18% of new taxi drivers were born in Bangladesh, up from 10% in 1991 and 1% in 1984. This increase reflects rapid increases in Bangladeshi immigration to New York City.

    15% of new drivers are from Pakistan, down from 21% in 1991 although still much higher than the 1984 figure of 3%.

    9% of drivers were born in the U.S., about the same as in 1991, when 10.5% were U.S.-born, but down from 26% in 1984."

    If you had ever been to New York you would know this.

    Parent

    BS (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 01:28:28 PM EST
    Every new group of immigrants quickly learn that african americans are on the bottom of the social ladder. That is a sad fact and somewhat explains why people who where here longer than most americans, 1600's are still oppressed because of the color of their skin.

    Parent
    Oh dear Lord! (none / 0) (#150)
    by txantimedia on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 02:22:29 PM EST
    "Every new group of immigrants quickly learn that african americans are on the bottom of the social ladder."

    Now you are claiming that people with NO prejudices come to America and immediately become prejudiced because of our culture.  Do you seriously want to contend this?  This conversation is drifting into the bizarre and outlandish.

    And for your information, American blacks are not on the bottom of the social ladder.  Poor people are.  You might want examine the log in your own eye before noticing the mites in others'.

    Parent

    BS (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 02:29:13 PM EST
    I am not claiming that immigrants do not have prejudices before they come to the US, but they do not figure in, often, because racism in america is specific to America. A hutu may hate a tutsi but those prejudices are irrelevant here.

    Most all immigrants to the US want to assimilate. They learn the social codes quickly. Being poor is not part of this discussion, but nice derail. The social ladder I am referring to is based on race. A wealthy black person is just as likely to have a cab pass him by as a poor black person. That is a fact in nyc..  ergo the AA  attorney and Taxi anecdote .

    Parent

    Ask African Americans (5.00 / 2) (#151)
    by MKS on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 02:24:25 PM EST
    about getting a cab in New York....

    Parent
    This is getting tendentious (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by txantimedia on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 03:02:32 PM EST
    Read I Know Why The Caged Bird Sings.  There's a passage in there were Maya relates a story about a clerk in Africa who was extremely rude to her.  The clerk was black.  This caused Maya to wonder if all the rude people she had interacted with in America were racists or whether some where just plain rude.

    Everything isn't about race.  Many people don't give it a second's thought.  I don't choose my friends based on the color of their skin but the content of their character.  Two of my best friends are black females who light up the room everywhere they go.  They do so because of their personalities not the accidents of their birth.  And I am attracted to them because they make me feel like the day will be better and everything will work out OK.

    Stop focusing on race and focus on what matters; an educational system that is an abject failure, social programs that create dependency rather than promote independence, politicians who sell grievances like popcorn instead of solving real problems with real solutions, etc., etc., etc.

    Parent

    I was following along reading your post (5.00 / 2) (#162)
    by MKS on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 03:16:39 PM EST
    until this:  

    Two of my best friends are black

    Oy.  

    This is as grating, and telling imo, when someone talks about the "Democrat" party.

    Parent

    really (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by TeresaInPa on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 05:41:17 PM EST
    so if it's a fact someone shouldn't say it?  Get out of the 70s.  People really do have black friends these days.  Many of us even have black and/or brown relatives.  Move on.

    Parent
    I can't help it (1.00 / 1) (#179)
    by txantimedia on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 04:45:33 PM EST
    if you're a bigot.

    I wrote a simple fact.  The fact that it's offputting to you says a great deal more about your prejudices than it does mine.  Would you prefer all my best friends were white?  Or Asian?  Or something else?  I have a racially diverse family and racially diverse friendships.  Don't be so shocked.

    Parent

    Thanks for the info (none / 0) (#126)
    by Darby on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 01:19:58 PM EST
    One hears this complaint all the time.  I am sure it happens at times, but this sheds a real perspective on it

    Parent
    Did the jury not know of GZ's ancestry? (none / 0) (#98)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 12:34:28 PM EST
    Did the defense put his AA grandfather and Latino uncle on the stand?

    Regardless, you do have a good point about how appearance matters.

    I live on the west coast but I think you are saying AA lawyers can't get a cab in NYC, why is that?

    Parent

    On getting a cab, (none / 0) (#102)
    by MKS on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 12:41:24 PM EST
    I have heard that from lawyers in Manhattan.

    We don't hail too many cabs at curbside here.

    I also had a Mediation in Mid-Wilshire where the Mediator was a retired African American judge.  When it came time for a lunch break, I asked about restaurants in the area, and he told me that he wasn't able to get service--they were always too busy for him--but that non-African Americans seemed to have no trouble....

    Parent

    Why do you suppose AA's apparently (none / 0) (#108)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 12:48:02 PM EST
    have a tough time getting taxis?

    According to this LA's 5000 taxi drivers are primarily immigrants and the President of the Los Angeles Taxi Workers' Alliance is from Ethiopia.

    Parent

    LA is not a good example (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by MKS on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 12:51:43 PM EST
    You generally have to call a cab.

    The New York example was apt because people stand on the sidewalk, or in the street, and waive for a cab...

    And, you are missing a key component about racism and stereotypes....Racism is not just overt hatred of someone because of their race.

    Have you seen the recent 60 Minutes show where even young African American kids identified the African American dolls as ugly when compared to the White dolls?

    Parent

    Um, LA's a bad example, OK. (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 01:13:56 PM EST
    Recent 60 Minutes show?

    My first thought was "Holy crap, is 60 Minutes still on the air? Who in the world still watches that?!"

    Then I googled around.

    The doll study was done in the 1940's. The only 60 Minutes involvement that I could find noted that in the 1970's the black couple that did the study moved from the inner city to the 'burbs saying "My children have only one life and I could not risk that."

    That said, I'm not arguing with your premise.

    For example I used to work with a guy who had a big crease between his eyebrows. This crease made him always look like he was giving you the "evil eye." He explained that that is why he has so many scars on his eyebrows, 'cuz his crease got him into a lot of bar fights and he was not a good fighter.

    Kinda like bald guys are generally considered less attractive than full-head of hair guys. Then there is fat vs fit, tall v short, blond v brunette, etc., etc.

    Regardless of all that, the question is whether the jurors were able to look at the facts presented to them and make their decision based on the law.

    Do you think they did not make a lawful decision?

    Parent

    Harvard has a website (none / 0) (#125)
    by MKS on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 01:18:31 PM EST
    with a bunch of test about hidden bias...This is current.

    Parent
    Are you referring to this? (5.00 / 0) (#159)
    by txantimedia on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 03:10:38 PM EST
    https:/implicit.harvard.edu/implicit

    Parent
    The question is (none / 0) (#136)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 01:37:20 PM EST
    whether the jurors were able to look at the facts presented to them and make their decision based on the law.

    Do you think they did not make a lawful decision?

    Parent

    By definition it was lawful (none / 0) (#163)
    by MKS on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 03:19:42 PM EST
    No retrial because of Double Jeopardy even if there were error. So, yes, it is lawful because the Judge signed the judgment.

    Correct?  Different issue.

    Parent

    Thank you. (none / 0) (#170)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 03:51:03 PM EST
    And this means what, exactly? (1.00 / 1) (#152)
    by txantimedia on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 02:25:53 PM EST
    I have a black friend.  He's tan complexion.  His wife looks like coal tar.  He has told me many stories about how she was abused by other black children growing up because she was darker than they are.

    Does this prove that all blacks are racists?  I hardly think so.

    You have a very distorted view of race.  It makes me wonder how many black friends you have.  You seem to know very little about them and parrot all the assumptions of the white guilt crowd.

    Parent

    Wow (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by vicndabx on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 04:05:09 PM EST
    you are just on a roll aren't you?  First you started w/dreadlocks=criminals.  Now you move on to coal tar and white guilt.  

    I wonder if you'd say any of that to a person on the street to their face.

    Parent

    Just an FYI (none / 0) (#113)
    by Darby on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 12:56:45 PM EST
    That is really really old news. Not irrelevant, but not startling new data

    Parent
    Yep (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by MKS on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 01:01:24 PM EST
    Going back to Brown v. Board.  The "news" is that nothing has changed.

    And, unfortunately, given recent conversations many people are oblivious....Taking people at face value when they say their decisions are not based on race.

    Parent

    You are obviously young (none / 0) (#201)
    by txantimedia on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 06:31:42 PM EST
    if you think nothing has changed.  I'm old enough to have lived through the civil rights days, when blacks were attacked with dogs and fire hoses for simply demanding equality, when bathrooms were labeled colored only and white only and when blacks had to ride in the back of the bus or be beaten for not doing so, when juries could find a white person not guilty for torturing and murdering young black children and girls were blown up in their churches.

    Unless you see those things going on today, then things have definitely changed.  You should go to the Civil Rights Museum in Memphis some time and see what it was like back in those days.  You would quickly see the progress that we've made.

    Is there still racism in America?  Of course there is, but it's no longer officially sanctioned by the government.

    Parent

    Are you living up to your name again? (none / 0) (#111)
    by vicndabx on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 12:54:11 PM EST
    :-)

    Parent
    Do you (none / 0) (#119)
    by friendofinnocence on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 01:09:54 PM EST
    actually believe a retired African American judge would tolerate discrimination like that for one second?  I don't.

    Parent
    That is what he told me (none / 0) (#122)
    by MKS on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 01:16:59 PM EST
    and the way he described it was it was nothing overt that you could use....

    Parent
    People are human (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by MKS on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 12:06:33 PM EST
    How they feel towards someone is extraordinarily important in determining whether they will believe him or not.

    People screen out facts that do not fit their world view.  People accept all kinds of supposed facts from people they like.  Just the human condition.  That is why you do not have just one juror.  And why it is important to have ethnically diverse juries.  

    Parent

    You are not entitled (none / 0) (#92)
    by jbindc on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 12:17:29 PM EST
    to an "ethnically diverse" jury.  In fact, the Sixth Amendment only guarantees you to an "impartial jury" of the State and district where the crime was committed. That's it.

    (Notice there's not even language about "jury of one's peers" - courts have interpreted the Sixth Amendment to read in "jury of one's peers" to broaden the potential pool of jurors, but nowhere is a defendant guaranteed to be judged by an "ethincally diverse" group of people, or a certain gender of people, or a certain age of people, or by people with only college degrees and higher.)

    Parent

    Non sequitur (none / 0) (#94)
    by MKS on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 12:22:36 PM EST
    I never said anything about Supreme Court holdings on this issue.  I could have raised Batson but I did not.

    I was talking about what is "important."  Especially when picking a jury when the case involve a racial minority as a party.

    Have you taken any of the tests about implied racial stereotypes at the Harvard website?  

    Parent

    So I ask the question again (none / 0) (#101)
    by jbindc on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 12:37:41 PM EST
    If the jury makeup had 5 black women and 1 Hispanic woman, and they acquitted GZ on the very same evidence, would you be here criticizing the verdict based on the racial makeup of the jury, or would you have a completely different view of the verdict?

    If you can't say you would absolutely, and without a doubt, have the same opinion of the verdict that you have now, then aren't you putting your biases forth in trying read what's in the juror's minds?

    Parent

    In that case they would be (1.00 / 1) (#124)
    by txantimedia on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 01:18:10 PM EST
    Uncle Toms and race traitors.

    It's obvious how this game is played.

    Parent

    Not sure what you are saying (none / 0) (#105)
    by MKS on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 12:45:09 PM EST
    The problem with hypotheticals, if pigs could fly, is it is hard to set up the entire scenario.

    But here I really do not follow.....

    Parent

    The problem is (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by jbindc on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 12:53:21 PM EST
    you are imposing all of societal ills on 6 women who seemed to take their job very seriously and assuming you know what's in their minds because they weren't "ethnically diverse" enough for you.

    If we are going to discuss race, then we must also discuss Trayvon Martin's motivations that helped put this whole tragedy in motion.

    But I don't think you want to do that.

    Parent

    B-37 was very sincere (none / 0) (#118)
    by MKS on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 01:06:44 PM EST
    and worked very hard.  Of that I have no doubt.  She was also very biased in favor of George Zimmerman and against Trayvon Martin from the get-go.

    Actually, I would love to discuss the off-topic topic you suggest.  But it is off-topic.   As it is, I am not sure the current posts will stand.

    Parent

    BS (none / 0) (#190)
    by TeresaInPa on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 05:46:23 PM EST
    there is no reason to believe she was biased.

    Parent
    I have no doubt (none / 0) (#189)
    by TeresaInPa on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 05:44:34 PM EST
    that an ethnically diverse jury (by that you mean one with a few black people on it, right) would have come to the same conclusion. I have confidence they too would have been able to see that the case had to be tried on facts and evidence.

    Parent
    Ironically he is part (none / 0) (#103)
    by Darby on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 12:43:47 PM EST
    AA. I think his grandfather was black

    Parent
    his grandmother (none / 0) (#193)
    by TeresaInPa on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 05:54:56 PM EST
    and her father were Black...Afro-Peruvian and her husband (his grandfather) Native american of course. It's only his father who is European.

    Parent
    Florida's laws (none / 0) (#15)
    by Cpl Cespod on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 09:25:56 AM EST
    I don't think this case was about race - at least not in the sense that GZ was a vigilante racist looking to profile and hunt down black people.  But man, Florida has crazy laws.  It seems like you can pick a fight with somebody, start screaming, pull out a gun and blow them away and get off claiming self-defense. That's wild! And I happen to believe those laws are in place because of the fear that the old South is about to be overrun by dark-skinned criminals and the government can't or won't do anything about it.  Anyway, stand your ground (not invoked in this case) is a great gift to defense attorneys.

    Parent
    Please stop this (5.00 / 2) (#127)
    by txantimedia on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 01:21:23 PM EST
    Florida's so-called "crazy" laws exist in 33 other states.  In fact California's self defense laws are even more lenient than Florida's.  This is not about the South.  It's not about race.  It's a simple case of self defense.

    And your bigotry toward the South is duly noted.

    Parent

    "Pick a fight with somebody"?? (none / 0) (#17)
    by jbindc on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 09:26:45 AM EST
    Not saying that's what happened in this case ... (none / 0) (#21)
    by Cpl Cespod on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 09:32:14 AM EST
    but it sure seems like you can do that under FL law.

    Parent
    Well (3.67 / 3) (#14)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 09:19:41 AM EST
    .

    A jury of mostly white women acquitted a man of black ancestry in a murder trial.  Quite the civil rights advancement.

    The only thing racial about this case was the usual race hustlers making it one.

    Ask yourself this, if Zimmerman's appearance had been blacker than Martin's would Sharpton et al been demanding "Justice for Travon?

    .

    Parent

    There's a difference... (3.67 / 3) (#203)
    by Thanin on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 06:34:18 PM EST
    Between biological ancestry and being distinguishably black.  If you can't understand that then there's nothing more to say.

    Parent
    And it seems (none / 0) (#11)
    by jbindc on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 09:07:30 AM EST
    that you want to put things in people's minds that a) are not there, or b) you have no idea that are there.  In other words - you are prejudging them, based on where they live, the fact that it was a mostly white jury, and what little you know about them through what has been made public.

    Doesn't that mean that your prejudices are showing through?

    Parent

    I think most people do the best they can (none / 0) (#20)
    by Anne on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 09:28:29 AM EST
    not to let these things factor into their decisions, but I think Dadler's partially right in that things like race play a role with us in ways we aren't conscious of.

    And let me just ask this question: would you expect a juror - any juror - to publicly say that race was a factor for her, especially given that it wasn't part of either side's case?  To make that kind of admission would be almost an admission that she didn't stay within the framework of the case, wouldn't it?  

    I think there's something that kind of takes over when one is called to serve on a jury - a higher purpose kind of thing that kicks in when one realizes that the decisions made will affect people's lives.  So, I tend to believe people who say they considered all the evidence, and set aside their bias - whatever that might be - and rendered a fair decision.


    Parent

    I think we all have biases (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by jbindc on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 09:45:55 AM EST
    And no, I wouldn't expect a juror to say that race played a factor, because, I'm pretty sure that would be detrimental to their safety and well being.  But I find it pretty insulting that it is assumed in many corners that because there were 5 white jurors, then their views on race must have played some major role in the verdict.  Maybe it did, maybe it didn't - but I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt to 6 citizens, who gave up their time (although not by choice), were sequestered for over a week, and did not hurry to a verdict, even though it would have been more convenient for them.  But they took their time, they read the law, they deliberated and decided that there was just not enough to convict GZ. That certainly doesn't mean they are holding him up as a hero or that they aren't saddened by the loss of a life.

    I also wonder if the jury had five black women and GZ had been found guilty, if those same people would express those very same sentiments - that, of course, black women would find him guilty, because, well, they're black and a black male was killed. What if the jury had 5 black women and they still acquitted him?  Would THAT be a just verdict and more acceptable?

    Are we going to judge verdicts based on the makeup of the jury and if that makeup is palatable to us, then then verdict is ok, as opposed to the verdict is ok as a matter of law?

    Parent

    I don't know the answer to your (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by Anne on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 10:12:25 AM EST
    questions; what's sad, though, is that here we are in 2013 still not able, apparently, to see anything through a race-neutral lens.

    But, how do you, for example, put an end to the arrest, conviction and sentencing disparities that clearly exist for people of color without dealing with race?  The answer to the problem isn't to start increasing the arrest of white people, or to start handing out more severe sentences for whites, nor is the answer to stop arresting, convicting and sentencing people of color.

    The disparities that exist in the criminal justice system are reflective of disparities that begin in the community - with gaps in education, income, housing, health care - and are expanding beyond the truly poor, out to the marginally middle class.

    In many respects, I think it is unfair to put the blame - if that's the right word - for the outcome of this trial on the jury, when the jury's job is to deal only with what it hears and sees in the courtroom.  If the state has a crappy case, it isn't up to the jury to correct those problems.  Does it happen?  I'm sure it does - we wouldn't have a term for it - jury nullification - if it didn't.

    I don't think the microscope belongs on the jury, but clearly there are people who think it does, and are happy to blame them for how things turned out.

    Parent

    I agree completely (5.00 / 4) (#36)
    by jbindc on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 10:23:40 AM EST
    And those people who are willing to blame the jury need to actually look at the facts of the case, instead of what the talking heads on cable news are telling them.

    The sad part is how many op-eds or articles I read, where, even if they agree with the verdict, keep getting the facts and evidence wrong.  This only serves to fuel the flames of people who didn't like the verdict to begin with.  I don't blame those people - they only know what they hear, and most people don't have the time or energy to devote to combing through every little bit of information that's out there.  I think the media deserves a whole lotta blame for the reactions we are seeing and doing nothing to correct those, because let's face it, protests over the verdict are a lot more interesting to cover than what's going on in Egypt, for example.

    And as far as the criminal justice system being unfair - I absolutely agree.

    Parent

    Hmmm (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Kplaids on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 12:13:09 PM EST
    That may be a discussion for another day but I am perplexed why sentencing of people who are guilty is brought into the discussion of a prosecution of an innocent person.  

    Parent
    Unfortunately (none / 0) (#56)
    by friendofinnocence on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 11:31:53 AM EST
    According to Marcus Pohlmann in his book "Opportunity Lost - Race and Poverty in the Memphis City Schools", a 28 year-old black male from Memphis is more likely to be in prison than to have a job.  

    Statistics like this don't come just from disparity in sentencing.

    Parent

    Which is why I mentioned the (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Anne on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 11:44:03 AM EST
    societal problems - lack of education or access to it, unemployment, poor nutrition, poor health care - the list is a long one.

    The criminal justice system is the end of a road, not a beginning, and I don't think we're addressing in any adequate way the things that put people on it.

    Parent

    The prosecution (none / 0) (#25)
    by Darby on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 09:34:50 AM EST
    Argued  the case wasn't about race.  Fom the NYT "John Guy, a prosecutor in the case, insisted forcefully that the case was not about race".   Jut listen to all the words in the states  closing  argument

    Parent
    Eric Holder - talking about Trayvon Martin - (2.33 / 3) (#171)
    by friendofinnocence on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 03:53:35 PM EST
    just told NAACP convention he was very concerned about SYG laws and Florida and other states needed to do about them - something like that.  Of course, the audience cheered because they didn't know any better.

    Juror on the Atrocious Instructions (none / 0) (#18)
    by RickyJim on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 09:28:10 AM EST
    JUROR: Exactly, exactly. We looked through pretty much everything. That's why it took us so long. We're looking through the evidence, and then at the end we just -- we got done, and then we just started looking at the law. What exactly we could find, and how we should vote for this case. And the law became very confusing.

    COOPER: Tell me about that.

    JUROR: It became very confusing. We had stuff thrown at us. We had the second-degree murder charge, the manslaughter charge, then we had self-defense, stand your ground, and I think there was one other one. But the manslaughter case -- we actually had gotten it down to manslaughter, because the second degree, it wasn't at second degree anymore.

    When the trial started I sent an email to Judge Nelson complaining about the arcane and confusing nature of the justifiable homicide instruction she read to the jury before testimony began.  I gave her an improved version.  She never replied.  Instructions based on expanding the following flowchart template would have lead to a much quicker verdict:

    Justifiable or Excusable Homicide? - Yes--> Not Guilty.  No--> Depraved Mind? - Yes--> 2nd Degree Murder.  No --> Manslaughter

    the jurors figured it out and it wasn't that (none / 0) (#28)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 09:49:33 AM EST
    confusing. It followed the pattern instructions and hundreds other Florida juries have been able to navigate them just fine. You spent enough time on the forums where they were patiently explained to you multiple times. You seem determined to close your eyes so you can maintain your confusion and suggest some other way is preferable.

    Parent
    My Questions Were not Answered (none / 0) (#34)
    by RickyJim on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 10:18:12 AM EST
    A check of them will show that.  I repeatedly asked why the Excusable Homicide stuff was there to no avail and pointed out redundancies, irrelevancies and contradictions in the Justifiable Homicide one and nobody disagreed.  Are Colorado instructions written in the same way?  My theory is that arcane and confusing instructions are preferred by lawyers with the weaker case and winning weak cases is where the money is.

    Parent
    On the issue of self defense and FL law (none / 0) (#53)
    by swiss473 on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 11:28:02 AM EST
    Just wondering if someone here can clear this up for me.  Someone mentioned it in one of the above posts.   Lets say Martin had gotten to the gun first and shot Zimmerman and then afterwards he claimed self-defense(saying he saw Zimmerman reach into his pocket, which Zimmerman admitted he did, and was worried he was going to shoot him), or say he shoved Zimmerman's hand out of the way, went for the gun and then shot Zimmerman.  Would Martin also have been covered under self-defense?

    Since Martin was aggressor (none / 0) (#71)
    by Kplaids on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 11:49:30 AM EST
    I think I have heard that the aggressor in the attack can't shoot in self defense???

    I know that the media claims Z was the aggressor because he got out of his car and the stunning thing about this juror's interview was that 3 of the jurors apparently needed to be made to understand that getting out of your own car in your own neighborhood is not an act of aggression, nor is walking in your own neighborhood.

    Parent

    Under Florida law (none / 0) (#137)
    by txantimedia on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 01:39:51 PM EST
    an aggressor can still claim self defense.  There has to be evidence that they were trying to escape or deescalate and were unable to and therefore had to resort to deadly force to end the encounter.

    Trayvon could have claimed self defense had he gotten the gun and shot Zimmerman, but he would have to explain the injuries George had versus his lack of injuries.

    Under Florida law, the police could not have arrested him until they had developed probable cause that he had committed a crime rather than self defense.

    /sarc Of course they didn't need probable cause to arrest George, because he was "white" and the victim was black.

    Parent

    As I understand Florida law (none / 0) (#160)
    by Harold on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 03:13:04 PM EST
    And don't take that very far, since its not personally relevant to me, it's the first to (illegitimately) introduce lethal force who can't claim self-defense unless he then retreats.

    Suppose a hypothetical of during the confrontation, but before any violence or serious threat of it occurred, Zimmerman said "I'm going to kill you" and drew his gun.  The threat is credible, Martin would have been justified in using any level of force including lethal to end the threat, although he can go only so far, if the threat is gone he can't continue.

    It's hard to get from this hypothetical to the sufficiently documented to me end.  But try this, assuming Zimmerman has a backup gun: Martin legitimately physically attacks him, the drawn gun is dropped and the fight moves far enough away it can't be retrieved.  Martin thinks the threat of lethal violence is over, and now he's gone beyond legitimate self-defense, and is applying enough force to potentially kill Zimmerman (when he should instead e.g. immobilize Zimmerman).  Or accept the latter's account of Martin noticing the gun (backup gun in this hypothetical), making the verbal threat to kill Zimmerman and reaching for the gun.

    Even though Martin's acts are now illegitimate, as I understand the law (and IANAL), Zimmerman would have given up his right to claim self-defense by that first illegitimate act and then failing to retreat (don't know how it plays out when you can't retreat as his account goes, but...).

    And addressing one point of our hosts', as I understand it, this hypothetical would have a series of acts that would have negated Zimmerman's claim of self-defense.  But in Real Life, there was no evidence Zimmerman made such a threat and I believe the prosecution didn't directly claim it.

    Parent

    Given that hypothetical (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by txantimedia on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 04:49:16 PM EST
    I think it would be anybody's guess as to how a jury would decide, and it would depend on what evidence was introduced and how it was presented.

    Parent
    I just deleted a long post... (none / 0) (#187)
    by unitron on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 05:37:59 PM EST
    ...when I saw that you weren't specific as to how much your scenario varies from what happened.

    At what point are you having Martin get hold of the gun?

    While both are still standing, which is the point where Zimmerman says he went to his pocket for his cellphone, or after they're already on the ground and Zimmerman's already got injuries and John Good's already seen them and told them he's calling 911?

    Parent

    IF he had disarmed Z (none / 0) (#207)
    by fairleft on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 06:48:02 PM EST
    would it be reasonable for T to believe he was under threat of grave injury or death? Unlikely. The injuries he had already caused to Z would be relevant. Since he was winning the hand-to-hand fight ...

    Parent
    Trying again (none / 0) (#63)
    by woodchuck64 on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 11:44:26 AM EST
    Your original comment:

    How can you believe this isn't one of those cases when other suspects in RTL crimes were black?  Even I would be suspicious of other blacks were the alleged perpetrators black.

    If this case is to be about race, it has to be about proving that Zimmerman assumed or believed race causes crime or other anti-social behavior (such a belief would be factually wrong and reprehensible).   But other uses of race are harmless and irrelevant and should not be conflated with this.  If Zimmerman notes that young black men were implicated in crime last month and therefore raises his suspicion of young black men this month, that is a harmless use of race, that is not a valid reason to make the case about race and raise the specter of racism.

    You imply that because you might be suspicious of other blacks in certain circumstances, this case should be about race.  No, the case should only be about race if racism is going on.  I see no racism in your suspicions, and I see no racism in Zimmerman's suspicions.


    heh (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by vicndabx on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 11:49:26 AM EST
    a harmless use of race

    indicative of the cluelessness that I've been posting about.

    Let me see how you'd feel were you ever to be the victim of "a harmless use of race."

    What I implied was - in spite of my suspicions, I would not choose to act or alter my behavior based on those suspicions.  THAT is the difference here.

    Parent

    vicndabx, I'm not getting your point (none / 0) (#147)
    by woodchuck64 on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 02:12:38 PM EST
    Your original comment was
    Even I would be suspicious of other blacks were the alleged perpetrators black.

    Since you say you would not be suspicious of a black man with a suit and briefcase walking briskly to the bus stop, your statement above must be too broad.  

    You clarified you would only be suspicious of blacks who also fit the profile of the alleged perpetrators.  That profile would include age, sex, attire, behavior, history, etc., i.e. many other factors besides race.

    I would not choose to act or alter my behavior based on those suspicions.

    But I would think you should act or alter your behavior based on suspicions if those suspicions are reasonable.  If the profile of the perpetrators includes the fact that they were Hispanic along with the fact of their clothes, age, sex, behavior, etc., and you encounter someone who fits the profile in all these ways and also happens to be Hispanic, why wouldn't you act on that?  

    You can't mean that if a person looks like a thief, acts like a thief but happens to be one race instead of some other race, that you would do nothing.  I don't follow that.

    As I see it, as long as there is no demonstrated assumption or belief that race is something negative, it does not qualify as racism.  Using race as one of many factors in a profile of attributes is no more racist than a Wanted Poster. Without demonstrated racism, a case should not even mention race to keep it from being conflated with racism.


    Parent

    That's not what happened here (none / 0) (#178)
    by vicndabx on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 04:12:53 PM EST
    You can't mean that if a person looks like a thief, acts like a thief

    and I'm not talking about someone that is obvious, and I think you know that.  

    And it is demonstrably different than a Wanted Poster.  There is a single person identified on a Wanted Poster.

    Parent

    and there was a single person that matched (none / 0) (#204)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 06:37:34 PM EST
    a description provided by a crime victim that GZ reported seeing in the neighborhood in two of his six prior calls to non-emergency. In a third, he reported no one, only that a garage door was open. In a fourth, he reported no one, only alerting the police to children playing in the street who might be in danger from car traffic. Yet the state claimed the prior calls showed a history of profiling young males as criminals.

    Parent
    Skimming The Post? (none / 0) (#82)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 12:06:25 PM EST
    She is not seeking a book deal.

    As for her seeking a book deal, she's already dropped that idea. They just wanted to tell the story.


    Glad she dropped it (none / 0) (#89)
    by MKS on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 12:12:32 PM EST
    here's a hypothetical (none / 0) (#133)
    by ding7777 on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 01:33:05 PM EST
    If the gated community was experiencing a rash of break-ins/burglaries committed by young white guys, and TM was a young white guy, do you think GZ would have called the NEN to report his suspicions?

    Parent
    Hypotheticals are fun! (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by shoephone on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 01:55:24 PM EST
    And prove nothing.

    Parent
    I think GZ... (5.00 / 5) (#146)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 02:04:56 PM EST
    would drop a dime on 3 nuns taking a walk as suspicious gang activity.

    Parent
    Heh! (5.00 / 2) (#148)
    by shoephone on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 02:15:02 PM EST
    Kdog, I'm so happy you're going to be enjoying the upcoming visit with your special lady, but I will miss some of your humor in your absence.

    Parent
    Only some? j/k ;) (5.00 / 2) (#149)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 02:22:14 PM EST
    Thanks shoephone...better to laugh than to cry, that's my motto.  El mundo es una farsa!

    Parent
    Absolutely (none / 0) (#138)
    by txantimedia on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 01:41:21 PM EST
    Same as you and I, with her ears... (none / 0) (#186)
    by gbrbsb on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 05:21:37 PM EST
    because your timings are out. GZ was not

    "..on the phone with dispatch at the same time [with RJ] - and for another two minutes".

    You have misread the timeline. Even the defence's own "Visual Timeline" placed in evidence doesn't support what you say.

    On it note the grey bar at the bottom showing the minutes and seconds, and note two ragged breaks coinciding with RJ/TM calls, a graphic recourse for a continuance when what needs to be represented doesn't fit. Note how GZ's NEN call ends at 13:40 (blue flag), while RJ/TM's call ends at 15:43 (green flag), i.e. exactly 2 mins and 3 seconds past GZ's NEN call, which takes it to ending a mere 30 seconds prior to W11's 911 call (red flag) which starts at 7:16:10, all of which fits perfectly with RJ's testimony of hearing the verbal exchange and "something bumped Trayvon".

    Getting it wrong isn't a problem here, but when a juror gets it wrong and for this discredits a witnesses testimony it is imo very worrying, and probably why I lean towards judge based systems where after a verdict the judge/s release a "statement of reasons" so lawyers from both sides can pour over it to see if they made any error of fact, reasoning, or of law.

    I am not saying it would have changed the verdict, but, imo, the jury, or juror B-37 at least, completely misread the timeline if, as it appears, she believes the NEN operator "would've heard something happening before" GZ hung up, link to video, transcript starts 8:01):

    AC: So you didn't find her credible as a witness?
    B-37: No
    AC: So did you find her testimony important in terms of what she actually said?
    B-37: Well, I think the most important thing is... is the time that she was on the phone with Trayvon. So you basically, hopefully, if she heard anything she would say she did, but the time coincides with George's statements and testimony of time limits and what had happened during that time.
    AC: Explain that.
    B-37: Well, because there was a... George was on the 911 call while she was on the call with Trayvon, and, em... the times coincide, and I think there was two minutes between when George ha... hang up from his 911 call to the time Trayvon and... and Rachel had hung up, so really nothing could have happened because the 911 call(er?) would've heard, (the non-emergency call that George had called),... heard something happening before that.


    her timeline is correct (5.00 / 2) (#210)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 06:59:24 PM EST
    according to both the state and the defense and the phone records.

    She's saying that if something happened before George hung up, which was two minutes before Rachel hung up, the dispatcher would have heard it. She's saying whatever Rachel heard had to happen in the two minutes after GZ hung up. Jenna Lauer connected with 911 30 seconds after Rachel hung up. Jenna and Jeremy called 911 after hearing "help" at the top of the T. So that fits with where GZ said the encounter happened.

    See the timeline the state admitted into evidence here. The defense agrees with the times.  

    Parent

    Part 2 of B-37 Interview.. (none / 0) (#192)
    by Laura G on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 05:50:03 PM EST
    airs tonight on CNN/Anderson Cooper.

    we're at 200 comments, this thread (none / 0) (#215)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 07:20:36 PM EST
    is now closed. There will be another B-37 thread tonight when Anderson Cooper airs the second portion of her interview.

    There's also a new Zimmerman thread to continue discussing the legal aspects of the case, in particular, the state's strategic choices at trial.

    I'm been pretty liberal about allowing commenters to express their views on the perceived racial aspects of the case in this thread, since it came up in B-37's interview, but I don't want the threads on legal issues to focus on race. There are other sites for you to discuss your views on race. The discussions here are focused on the legal case.