I, personally, am disappointed in much of what she is stating re: jurors feeling in their "hearts" that Zimmerman was guilty, but the law insists you put your hearts aside and examine the evidence

If that's what she said, she is either ignorant of the Constitution which guarantees the right to a fair and impartial jury, or like her co-counsel told Greta, she views her  duty to be a "social engineer" as greater than her duty to be an attorney. In which case she should be speaking as an activist, not a lawyer.

It is the defendant who has the constitutional right to an impartial jury. The Sixth Amendment:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed.  

Florida's constitution:

(a) In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall, upon demand, be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, and shall be furnished a copy of the charges, and shall have the right to have compulsory process for witnesses, to confront at trial adverse witnesses, to be heard in person, by counsel or both, and to have a speedy and public trial by impartial jury in the county where the crime was committed.

(b) Victims of crime or their lawful representatives, including the next of kin of homicide victims, are entitled to the right to be informed, to be present, and to be heard when relevant, at all crucial stages of criminal proceedings, to the extent that these rights do not interfere with the constitutional rights of the accused.

Of course, some other sources perpetrated untruths, but that will not be surprising to anyone here.  

But there's a valid reason for exclusion of certain types of evidence from juries, particularly, if it is unreliable, not relevant, or was obtained in violation of the defendant's constitutional rights. These are not technicalities.

Unfortunately, as you say and I have pointed out hundreds of times on this site, trials are not a search for the truth. They are no more than a testing of the evidence: Can the state prove the charges with legally admissible and competent evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. (And where self-defense is raised, in Florida, the state disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt.)I remember the Judge in the OKC bombing trial clearly stating this at a hearing on a victim's motion to intervene on some issue. (Victims filed about 100 motions in that case.)

Robin Roberts: When you all sent that note, to the judge, asking for an explanation on manslaughter, what was that about?

B-29: What we were trying to figure out was, manslaughter, in order to be charged, we had to prove that when he left home, he said 'I'm gonna go kill Trayvon Martin'.

No high school graduation for Trayvon, no college for Trayvon, no grandkids coming from Trayvon, all because of a law that has prevented the person who shot and killed my son to be held accountable, and to pay for this awful crime.

Second degree murder instruction says

In order to convict of Second Degree Murder, it is not necessary for the State to prove George Zimmerman had an intent to cause death.

Manslaughter instruction:

In order to convict of manslaughter by act, it is not necessary for the State to prove that George Zimmerman had an intent to cause death, only an intent to commit an act that was not merely negligent, justified, or excusable and which caused death.

All that is required for manslaughter is:

1. Trayvon Martin is dead.
   
2. George Zimmerman intentionally committed an act or acts that caused the death of Trayvon Martin

The jury was not instructed on manslaughter by culpable negligence. While it was instructed on excusable homicide, since that requires a finding of both accident and misfortune, and precludes use of a deadly weapon during sudden combat, it's not applicable to the facts or arguments raised.

Again,

In order to convict of manslaughter by act, it is not necessary for the State to prove that George Zimmerman had an intent to cause death, only an intent to commit an act that was not merely negligent, justified, or excusable and which caused death.

Great.

And the fact that she said "He got away with murder" shows she didn't understand the jury instructions.

The killing of a human being is justifiable homicide and lawful if necessarily done while resisting an attempt to murder or commit a felony upon George Zimmerman....

that 3-5 yrs for a lesser offense with time off for good behavior might look pretty darn do-able.

Since Jeralyn writes about criminal law, that's what I'd expect her to care about. Not what's newsworthy to the media, but what legal issues remain, and we have a 2nd juror now say she didn't see the issue as racially motivated. JMO

The 1st was on ABC World News Tonight this evening.

The 2nd part will be on Nightline tonight.

If she did, then why all the parsing of the jury instructions?

About Juror 37, she disagreed and said it wasn't about race, but 37 also said that, so did I misunderstand? There didn't appear to be any disagreement.

As the only minority, she felt she let them all down when she saw the reaction.

She said in order to prove manslaughter, they'd have to show that when GZ left home that night, he set out to kill TM, which reinforces my opinion that by "intent" she means the lead up to the fight, not intent as per the instructions.

She hopes that people will stop looking at people as color, yet she said she doesn't and the jury didn't.

In deliberations jurors can be asked by other jurors to explain their position and if the explanation is not sufficient that can also be justification to excuse the juror.  As an example if a juror said the devil appeared in a vision and told me to vote this way a judge might excuse them.  But if there is any wiggle room the judge would most likely not excuse the juror.

'What Is Juror B29 Saying About The Zimmerman Verdict?'

link

I've already seen legal commentators say she was bullied (by juror 37 one says) when Robin Roberts asked her that and she said she wasn't bullied, she was the loudest.