home

Zimmerman Juror B-29 Speaks: Race Not an Issue

Juror B-29, the sole minority juror in the George Zimmerman trial, and her attorney flew to New York to be interviewed by Robin Roberts of ABC News.

ABC identified B-29 as Maddy and said she is Puerto Rican.... Maddy tells ABC that the case was never about race for her.

In fact, Maddy says she doesn't believe the case should have gone to trial. "I felt like this was a publicity stunt," she tells Roberts. "This whole court service thing to me was publicity."

In other reports of the interview, "Maddy" says she wanted to convict Zimmerman but the jury instructions didn't allow it, and she thinks he "got away with murder." [More....]

"But as the law was read to me, if you have no proof that he killed him intentionally, you can't say he's guilty."

Of course, the jury instructions specifically said Zimmerman did not have to intend to kill Martin to be found guilty of either Murder 2 or Manslaughter. He just had to have intentionally committed the act that resulted in his death, i.e., he had to have intended to shoot him.

"Maddy" says she was the holdout juror the first day, but the second day, after reading the instructions for 9 hours with the other jurors, there was no way to find him guilty.

She also says now having seen the reaction to the verdict,

She said she believes she owes Trayvon Martin's parents an apology because she feels "like I let them down."

Does she discuss self-defense? I guess we'll have to wait until the interview airs tonight to find out.

< Federal Jury in NY Returns Death Verdict | The Myth About Chicago's Murder Rate >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Will be interesting to see the entire interview.. (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Cashmere on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 03:01:59 PM EST
    I wonder if we get to hear it all at once, or in parts.

    I read a report from somewhere about this and the two comments I saw were trashing this juror already because she did not hold out for a guilty verdict or a hung jury.  The comments were very nasty, indicating she should feel guilty and have this hanging over her heard for the rest of her life, etc.

    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...  but then she goes on to say that Zimmerman will ultimately be judged by God, and that he got away with murder.  Of course, this will be the headline everywhere.  It is already in anything that you search for re: juror B-29.  

    I wonder if the other 4 will come out with another statement through the court that juror B-29 does not speak for them... or not...

    Why? (4.60 / 5) (#4)
    by jbindc on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 03:06:56 PM EST
    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

    That's exactly how the system is supposed to work - jurors should put their emotions aside and decide the verdict based on the law.

    Parent

    I guess I wasn't clear... I am not disappointed (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Cashmere on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 03:19:29 PM EST
    about that at all... that they put their emotions aside.  Just disappointed that she is then stating that Zimmerman got away with murder and that he will ultimately be judged by God.  She has a right to her opinion and to state whatever she wants, I just find it disappointing that someone can part of a jury that found a man not guilty due to lack of evidence to prove his guilt, but can still chooses to publicly make such claims.  Additionally, the jury was not allowed to hear much evidence such as Martin's tendency to fight or other activities that might have made them emotionally question Martin more.  This is my disappointment.

    Parent
    Were you equally (1.00 / 1) (#62)
    by dainla on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 05:52:14 PM EST
    upset with B37 making the opposite claims?

    Or does this just apply to the side you want to hear?

    Parent

    I consider your comment (2.00 / 2) (#128)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 10:08:04 PM EST
    a personal attack.  B37 didn't make the opposite claims.  B37 never called TM a murderer or a thug or said he was guilty of anything.  She didn't  attack his character.  So your comment doesn't even make any sense.

    Parent
    I make no effort to hide that I have a side (1.00 / 1) (#114)
    by Cashmere on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 09:32:44 PM EST
    in this case.  You would have to specifically ask me what you are referring to as I have not heard the interview yet.

    Your snippiness is duly noted, however.

    Parent

    Ah, got it. (none / 0) (#11)
    by jbindc on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 03:24:41 PM EST
    Human beings are almost exclusively... (none / 0) (#25)
    by Dadler on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 04:19:23 PM EST
    ...emotional creatures, IMO, and it is always kind of fantasy-world thinking to believe emotion plays no part in a verdict. The emotions generated by being told NOT to be emotional is, in fact, an emotional reaction.

    Humans can NEVER be emotionless. When they are, they are sociopaths, and THAT, in a nutshell, is THE contradiction when it comes to jury trials. A necessary contradiction and conflict, but a giant one nonetheless.

    We all know emotion plays a huge role in MANY cases.

    Parent

    Her thoughts are (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by txantimedia on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 03:15:05 PM EST
    very confused.  She thinks Zimmerman is a murderer yet says there never should have been a trial.  She talks like the law forced her to do the wrong thing by finding him not guilty even though he's a murderer.  Very disjointed thinking.

    Could be the medium too (5.00 / 6) (#8)
    by cboldt on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 03:20:48 PM EST
    What we are allowed to see is what the producers edit for presentation on teevee, and the viewers perception of the juror's state of mind is also colored by the questions she is asked.

    Not to say she isn't confused, just saying maybe she isn't, and the perception that she is confused could be an artifact of the programming.  The press could make Einstein appear confused about elementary physics.

    Parent

    {{{sigh}}} (none / 0) (#14)
    by txantimedia on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 03:48:15 PM EST
    I, of all people, should have thought of that.....

    Parent
    Yes, interesting that she thinks this should have (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Cashmere on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 03:21:25 PM EST
    never gone to trial in the first place and was a publicity stunt.  A publicity stunt for whose benefit?  Martin's I assume, and civil rights.  Not sure what she means by this.  I agree with her, though.  I don't think this should have ever gone to trial.

    Parent
    I assumed this juror bought the (none / 0) (#26)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 04:19:57 PM EST
    theory, frequently expressed here, that Ms. Corey issed charges against defendant Martin in order to pave her way o higher office.

    Parent
    please don't make unsupported (none / 0) (#45)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 05:05:51 PM EST
    speculations here. You haven't even heard her whole interview.

    Parent
    With due respect, why post links to the excerpts? (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 05:39:13 PM EST
    My comment #99 is also (none / 0) (#103)
    by Teresa on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 08:52:27 PM EST
    speculation based on what she said tonight. Since there's more to come later tonight, you may consider it specutlation that needs deleted.

    Parent
    If she thinks it was not about race (none / 0) (#34)
    by ruffian on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 04:35:47 PM EST
    why would she think it was a publicity stunt for civil rights?

    Parent
    I guess trying to make it about race. (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by ruffian on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 04:36:10 PM EST
    Never mind!

    Parent
    You do get that (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by dainla on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 05:48:19 PM EST
    you can think someone has murdered another person and there is no way to prove it, right?

    Parent
    then vote guilty (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by woodchuck64 on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 07:20:19 PM EST
    If one thinks a person is guilty of an "unlawful" murder, one certainly should vote that way.  Nobody has a threshold for that kind of terrible accusation that is anything but extremely high.  

    However, if one thinks a person is guilty of "lawful" murder, then it seems clear that person is keeping the law separate from one's personal moral view, which I think is the case here.

    Parent

    there is no lawful (none / 0) (#82)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 07:52:38 PM EST
    murder, there is lawful killing which is not a murder or manslaughter

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#96)
    by woodchuck64 on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 08:34:51 PM EST
    I put "lawful" in quotes to express how a person might mentally partition legal definitions of killing from personal moral beliefs about killing.  This is the only way I can understand Juror B-29's statement that Zimmerman got away with a murder that she insists was lawful.

    Parent
    The jurors names will be released in 6 months (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by Jack203 on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 07:56:50 PM EST
    Would you want to live in fear the rest of your life?

    Her course of action has much to gain and nothing to lose.

    Parent

    Jack, I agree (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by SuzieTampa on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 08:11:08 PM EST
    If these jurors really had not followed the case, as they said in the beginning, how shocking it must be to come out of sequestration and find out that you've enraged many Americans, including ones who are calling you stupid or racist or suggesting that you deserve to die.

    B29 has a lawyer, as do so many others involved in this case. It makes sense to go for redemption before the public knows your full name.

    Of course, this is an amazing publicity stunt for ABC, which is airing  bits and pieces of her interview before the full interview. The problem is that people may misunderstand some of what B29 is saying when taken out of context.

    Parent

    Oddly... (none / 0) (#214)
    by Adirolf on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 07:14:16 PM EST
    Actually, this juror is consistent.  She believes the jury's wrong conclusion that the law did not permit any conviction, so obviously she could reason on that basis that charges should not have been taken to trial. Along with that she laments that the law which she misunderstands would allow someone to "get away with murder" as she apparently believes happened.

    Parent
    Given that there will always be someone (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Anne on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 03:46:38 PM EST
    who doesn't like what the jury decided, why would someone open themselves up to the kind of scrutiny the members of this jury are getting?

    No matter what she says, it will be parsed, distorted, taken out of context and leave her feeling like people still don't understand what she was trying to say.

    She did her job.  She owes no one any explanation that I am aware of.

    I truly don't know why anyone would allow themselves to be drawn into more unnecessary drama.

    I don't know why (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by Zorba on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 04:56:09 PM EST
    any juror would say anything about any trial that they were involved in.
    They just need to STFU.  You are absolutely right.  They do not owe anyone any explanation.
    I guess, though, that some people feel the need to explain themselves, or whatever.  I just cannot fathom this.


    Parent
    It's the Andy Warhol effect. (none / 0) (#15)
    by txantimedia on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 03:48:56 PM EST
    That might be unfair (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by ExcitableBoy on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 05:35:04 PM EST
    Is it for her 15 minutes, or to explain herself? You spend all that time looking at evidence, you take it seriously, do the best job you can do, and afterwards millions of people tell you you F'd up and let a murderer go free. Maybe she's trying to stand up for herself a little.

    That being said, I'd like to think I'd have no part of the post-trial interviews, but who knows.

    Parent

    The world into which she emerged (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Babel 17 on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 03:49:01 PM EST
    Speaking in general, it takes a hardened juror to tell an outraged public, in effect and in regards the verdict, "deal with it".

    Someone got killed and as an honest juror you couldn't deliver the hoped for closure to those mourning the victim of the shooting.

    I know I'd want to make it clear I wasn't minimizing the loss of life.

    Regarding these jurors specifically, I'd rather hear from them in one go and from a serious interviewer.

    I'm thinking these jurors are a bit wary, to say the least, of people who might be holding a grudge for the verdict.


    Precisely (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Jack203 on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 08:03:32 PM EST
    "I'm thinking these jurors are a bit wary, to say the least, of people who might be holding a grudge for the verdict."

    The juror, who used only her first name of Maddy out of concerns for her safety, told ABC that she and others on the panel felt Zimmerman was guilty, but that wasn't enough.

    Parent

    So, of course it makes perfect sense (3.00 / 2) (#106)
    by Anne on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 09:03:15 PM EST
    to go on national television and broadcast your face to millions of people; that's what I would do if I was wary of what people were thinking about me and my decision.

    My opinion?  The more they talk about how they made their decision, the more they open the door for people to question it.

    Those who want to believe this was about race are not going to be convinced it wasn't just because the jurors say so.

    It's over.  There is no overturning the verdict, even if all six jurors acquitted Zimmerman because they thought he could make monkeys fly out of his butt.

    Parent

    Are you forgetting what she said on tv? (2.50 / 4) (#138)
    by Jack203 on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 10:55:17 PM EST
    She towed the Anti-Zimmerman line and pretty much begged forgiveness from the people she is fearful of giving her full name too.

    I have no idea if you are trying to claim this case is about race or not about race, or why you are bringing it up now.  Absolutely no clue.  You would fit right in with the Martin lawyers at least.

    Parent

    You'd have a better idea what I meant (4.33 / 6) (#160)
    by Anne on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 06:41:41 AM EST
    if you had done more than see my name, pick out a few words and make an assumption my comment did not bear out.

    Here, let's try again:

    1.  If one is concerned about the public's reaction to the verdict, privacy and anonymity are better ways to protect one's self than going on TV and showing one's face to millions of people.

    2.  If someone wants to believe that race was an issue, they aren't going to be persuaded by a juror who says it wasn't.

    Now, see if you can find anything in either of those points that speaks to whether I think race played a role in the case.  

    Looking...looking...mmmm...nope, nothing there.

    I didn't watch any of the interview; I really have no interest in what the juror was thinking.  She did her civic duty, she and her fellow jurors reached a unanimous verdict, and it can't be overturned.  As for the race issue, it wasn't part of the case or the charges, so what one juror or six jurors think about that is no more dispositive than what any one of us thinks - it may help the DOJ to decide whether it wants to take this thing further, but otherwise, it's just six more non-binding, non-legal opinions.

    If you want to know what I think about the race issue, ask next time instead of making assumptions and trying to read between the lines.

    Parent

    anne (1.50 / 2) (#170)
    by Jack203 on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 09:33:37 AM EST
    1. I disagree

    and furthermore do not discount

    • financial gain (interviews/books)
    • she was a pariah in her community for not joining the lynch mob.  

    She has everything in the world to come out and say exactly what she is saying (anti-Zimmerman).

    2.  It's very simple

    If you don't think race played a role in the verdict.  You are correct.

    If you don't think race played a role in this case.  You are oblivious to reality.


    Parent

    No proof she has any plans to gain financially (3.00 / 4) (#172)
    by Angel on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 10:09:48 AM EST
    from her public comments.

    Lynch mob???  Please stop with that kind of language.

    Parent

    when defense attorneys are receiving death threats (3.83 / 6) (#174)
    by lily on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 10:54:05 AM EST
    and wearing kevlar vests there is a serious problem of vigilante justice associated with mob rule.

    Parent
    The Martin family ... (4.00 / 8) (#186)
    by Yman on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 12:21:50 PM EST
    ... also received death threats.

    Should we use the phrase "lynch mob" to refer to the other side?

    Parent

    so the claim goes (3.00 / 6) (#199)
    by lily on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 03:13:55 PM EST
    yet I have not seen a tweet or text proving the claim, nor have the Martins left their homes or curtailed nationally and for that matter internationally travel without body guards or Kevlar vests.

    Prove it. I don't believe they have received death threats, and if they have gotten a couple it certainly has not affected they their freedom or new job as advocates.

    Parent

    "Prove it"? (3.67 / 6) (#202)
    by Yman on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 04:51:59 PM EST
    1.  I don't have to prove anything ... least of all to you.

    2.  "The claim"?  You mean like Zimmerman's "claim"?  Funny how you demand proof when the threats are made against the Martin family, yet none from Zimmerman - while at the same time dismissing them as "a couple" of threats.  I don't know what you have or haven't "seen", but you do realize that anyone can post real (or fake) death threats via text or twitter, right?

    Nice double standard.

    Parent
    Ignoring reality (3.50 / 2) (#211)
    by Jack203 on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 06:25:49 PM EST
    There are pictures of people outside the courtroom wearing clothing with Zimmerman in crosshairs.

    You are delusional.

    Parent

    are you always so obnoxius? (2.60 / 5) (#206)
    by lily on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 05:41:27 PM EST
    I stated clearly the threats against the Zimmerman family are easily found in numerous online articles. Jeralyn once posted a link as a matter of fact.

    Parent
    No, that isn't at all what you stated. (4.33 / 6) (#208)
    by Angel on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 05:54:59 PM EST
    I don't think that's what Anne (3.25 / 4) (#153)
    by Teresa on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 12:21:46 AM EST
    meant and she doesn't fit in with those lawyers.

    She's being sarcastic, imo, about a "wary" person going on TV.

    She's also, imo, just stating a fact that the people who believe it's about race won't change their mind just because a juror says so, not that that's her personal view.

    I agree with her. If the DOJ comes to the same conclusion the FBI did, it won't change the opinions of those who think it's about race. There's enough public information out there already for them to come to that conclusion, if they wanted to.

    Parent

    This tweet pretty much (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by txantimedia on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 04:15:38 PM EST
    summarizes some of the reaction.
    I do wish #B29 had the balls to stand up & fight. If she knew in her heart it was murder she should have read between the lines of the law!
    Let's pray that jurors don't take this advice to heart.  A lot of innocent people will be in jail if they do.

    The torture never stops... (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by fishcamp on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 04:26:17 PM EST
    Or not. Jury nullification (none / 0) (#28)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 04:24:01 PM EST
    might often benefit a criminal defendant.

    Parent
    jury nullication is (none / 0) (#95)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 08:34:25 PM EST
    not the topic. Please stay on topic. Comments arguing about jury nullification in general have been deleted.

    Parent
    She may be muddled, she sure is confusing ME (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by ruffian on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 04:37:29 PM EST
    My comment the other day about being best able to respect jurors from afar still stands.

    It is sometimes best not to (none / 0) (#38)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 04:41:53 PM EST
    probe the thoughts and/or deliberations of jurors. Especially if your client prevailed.  Of course, the client who didn't prevail makes sure to probe.

    Parent
    the defendant in this case (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 05:08:30 PM EST
    is not probing the jurors. Either is the state, which lost. The media is doing this.

    Parent
    My comment was a generality. (none / 0) (#53)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 05:31:49 PM EST
    I talked to jurors for the first few dozen... (5.00 / 3) (#140)
    by bmaz on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 11:33:11 PM EST
    ...trials, dunno exactly how many, before I figured out that they were freaking me out. Jurors really try to do the right thing, and mostly come up with correct verdicts in my experience. But trying to hard to probe their psyche will make you insane. Other lawyers I know feel different, but that was the conclusion I came to after a while. If there is some specific concern, then yes go talk to them. But otherwise they can freak you out unnecessarily.

    Parent
    Effect of Presentation of Jury Instructions (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by RickyJim on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 11:21:40 AM EST
    Some judges make them a series of yes or no questions, sort of like a flowchart, which are easy to understand and follow.  In the Zimmerman case, they were a cut and paste job from various sources and came out disorganized and redundant.  Did you find your jurors thrown off base by poorly written instructions?

    Parent
    Just a supposition on my part (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by txantimedia on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 06:21:36 PM EST
    People often use language quite imprecisely, unlike the law.  Perhaps by "intent" this juror means ill will or "he meant to kill him".  If you think about it, people frequently think of murder as "he deliberately killed him" as opposed to the legally precise language of intent.

    If by intent she means that George wasn't trying to kill Trayvon, he was just trying to stop the attack, then her explanation is correct although quite imprecise according to the legal definition of 2nd degree murder and manslaughter.

    She is clearly using the word murder in a colloquial rather than legal sense.  Perhaps the same is true of her use of the word intent.

    I think this is a likely possibility (none / 0) (#73)
    by Darby on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 06:47:48 PM EST
    Jeralyn, Robert H was on (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Teresa on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 06:30:06 PM EST
    Erin Burnett just now (beginning of show) and I just wanted to let you know if you want to see it on replay or transcript.

    He "debated" with Natalie Jackson. He wasn't critical of the juror at all and said she was a take because she said everyone deserved a fair trial, etc.

    They got into it pretty good about race and NJ thinks it was wrong that people who marched etc., to have GZ arrested should have been kept off the jury. That one I don't get at all. I'm sure the prosecution would have liked that, but even they knew that wasn't right.

    would she agree those who (5.00 / 3) (#71)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 06:46:23 PM EST
    believed GZ prior to the trial that GZ had the right to defend himself by shooting Martin should also have served? Was she asked?

    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.

    Please don't bring more comments by her to this site.

    Parent

    Agree with all you said. (none / 0) (#81)
    by Teresa on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 07:47:59 PM EST
    I mainly wanted to point out the defense's view of this juror and should have stopped with that. I keep forgetting not to comment on the family lawyers because it's hard not to when they're arguing with a person involved in the GZ case.

    I'll try harder and I apologize.

    Parent

    This seems obvious (none / 0) (#86)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 08:03:53 PM EST
    I'm glad to be able to agree with you on some things about this.

    Parent
    I am in complete agreement... (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by bmaz on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 11:36:41 PM EST
    ...with BTD! This is very satisfying!

    Parent
    This juror is black (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Darby on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 06:46:26 PM EST
    Isnt she?  I have been hearing that the acquittal was from an all white jury. On CNN, the legal  experts insist it necessary to have at least one black juror or the minority  POV to be represented. I don't get why this hasn't come out sooner

    In their commentary this afternoon (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by PM on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 06:53:48 PM EST
    According to our "awesome" media, Juror #B29 is a Black Hispanic and GZ is a White Hispanic.

    Parent
    Thank your media of choice. (none / 0) (#92)
    by Visteo1 on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 08:24:15 PM EST
    I believe the descriptions come from observers in the court room.  I have heard the jury called "all white" and "five white and a minority"....etc.  

    As an individual juror, I have never heard her called black.

    They have been called all females.  How do we know someone didn't have a sex change operation.

    Our media has an obligation...never mind.  I am wrong.  

    Parent

    Here is how the media should (none / 0) (#97)
    by Visteo1 on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 08:37:36 PM EST
    have reported the make-up of the jury...

    "Based on observations in the court room, the jury appears to be comprised of six females.  Their races are not clear, but 5 appear to be white and the sixth appears to be (fill in what you want based on your observation in the interview)"

    Where have journalistic priciples gone?  Don't we have time to make clear distinctions in our speech?  Heck, the media doesn't even take the time to check facts.  CNN after the trial said George should not have gotten out of the truck after being told he did not have to follow...he was already out of the truck!!!  Don't they have editors any more?

    Sorry to ramble, but trust your media a little less after this.  

    Parent

    she self-identifies as Puerto Rican (none / 0) (#101)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 08:48:59 PM EST
    And I haven't heard anyone on CNN say there has to be a minority juror on the panel to represent the minority point of view. That would be inaccurate.

    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.

    Jurors cannot be stricken because of their race (or gender.) The venire ( panel from which the jury is selected ) must include a cross-section of the community, and this one did. There were several minority jurors questioned. There is no requirement jurors of any particular race have to be chosen and so long as the lawyers can provide a race-neutral explanation, they can be stricken.

    Parent

    There legally doesnt have to be a minority (none / 0) (#120)
    by Darby on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 09:47:30 PM EST
    Here is an excerpt from one discussion.  Although the conversation itself is convuluted because they are acting as if Martin, the AA, was the defendant, when of course Zimmerman was the defendant.

    COOPER: It's so interesting, I mean, I read this study recently about -- by a number of economists and they looked at trials in Florida from 2000 -- I think it was 2010 and with all-white juries when there was a black defendant, they convicted that black defendant 16 percent times more than if it was a white defendant, and if they had -- if the reverse was if they had one African-American juror instead of an all-white jury, that inequality in sentencing between the black defendant and the white defendant it went down to a negotiable difference.

    GERAGOS: Right. Because it's -- it's no longer an elephant in the room. And it's not group thinking and everything else. That's why it's so important in jury selection. That's why there's the whole developed body of law that you can't -- the prosecutors can't and defense now what we call reverse Batson, can't strike people or cognizable class. That is the most important part of the trial. I'm saying until the --

    Parent

    Many, many sources id'd a juror as minority (none / 0) (#113)
    by Towanda on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 09:28:48 PM EST
    as soon as the jury was selected, and throughout the trial, and since -- sources including this site  

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

    Another example is that some sources stated, repeatedly, that all six jurors were mothers.  (Again, one is not a mother.)

    Parent

    B29 (5.00 / 3) (#89)
    by Jack203 on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 08:15:39 PM EST
    To deny outside factors may have shaped her public comments is foolish.

    She has concerns for her own safety (she doesn't provide her full name out of fear), She doesn't want to be treated like a pariah in her own community, and she has financial motivations to come forward (interviews, books)

    Her current opinion is worthless in value, but will serve to further fan the flames (for those of you that like that kind of thing).  The media sure likes the web hits.

    I do give the jury credit for making the right decision even with chanting bystanders outside the courtroom.  It took courage.

    I have always been confused (5.00 / 3) (#100)
    by Richjo on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 08:44:33 PM EST
    about why people attach so much weight to what jurors think about a case above and beyond the verdict they reach. A criminal trial is not a search for truth. Its verdict does not necessarily reflect the truth about the reality of a situation, and given the rules of what evidence is allowed in and what isn't; it is quite possible that the opinion a juror reaches about what actually happened may be less true to the objective reality than other peoples. I believe this is because of the fact that often times information is excluded that may be helpful to understanding that objective reality, but doesn't further the aim of the trial which is to rigorously test the state's case to ensure that the rights of the accused are not violated. I guess it is interesting to hear what jurors have to say, but I don't see how it amounts to much in the end.  

    I agree (4.25 / 4) (#107)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 09:03:32 PM EST
    Especially when the juror is giving an explanation after the verdict when she has been exposed to information that was excluded at trial, and particular, public criticism of the verdict.

    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.)

    This is why I also say the criminal justice system is not designed to cure every conceivable social ill. The gripes about this verdict seem to be based on people's subjective moral views. The legal issues have been few and clear from the start. Was the killing a justifiable use of deadly force or was it murder or manslaughter? The instructions were pretty clear and follow the Florida statutes in providing that a killing that results from the justifiable use of force is not unlawful. Such killings are not a crime at all.


    Parent

    Jeralyn (4.50 / 4) (#166)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 09:10:38 AM EST
    "trials are not a search for the truth. They are no more than a testing of the evidence"

    If this is the case, why is it hard to accept the following to all be true:

    1. Zimmerman was responsible in some moral way for Martin's death

    2. Race was a part of the case and/or the larger story

    3. The verdict was correct

    4. Blacks in this country are justifiably angry with Zimmerman's actions and the initial treatment of the case

    I believe all 4 things above to be true.

    Parent
    The four things you cited are just opinions, (5.00 / 6) (#169)
    by Anne on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 09:31:55 AM EST
    and have nothing to do with the legal proceeding and its outcome.

    What Jeralyn attempted to do (at least as I understand it - and she can correct me if I'm wrong) was permit discussion of broader issues only up to the point where the judge ruled on their admissibility, and where something was deemed inadmissible, to strike it as a subject for discussion, so that our discussion was limited to only those issues and materials, evidence and testimony which the jury was allowed to consider in the legal proceeding.  

    The purpose was, I believe, in an effort to make this about the law, and not about people's subjective opinions on absolutely everything that was out there in the larger, non-legal world.

    We became as much like the real jury as this venue allowed, and it's the reason, I think, that even people like me, who had questions that never got answered, were able to see that the jury reached the only verdict it could within the framework of the law.

    The system is only as good as those working within it, and it isn't the jury's job to correct the mistakes and missteps of either the prosecution or the defense.

    Parent

    My 2 cents (4.40 / 5) (#167)
    by jbindc on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 09:17:00 AM EST
    1. Partially.  

    2. No scintilla of evidence to suggest this, unless you are including TM's comment about a "crazy a$$ cracker".

    3. Yes.

    4.  I can see why, after all the misinformation that has been presented, but if they would look at the known facts, that anger would be / should be lessened.  We ALL should be angry at the senseless death of a young man, but maybe we need to look at the WHOLE story.


    Parent
    I think it's entirely possible to present (5.00 / 4) (#177)
    by Anne on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 11:02:55 AM EST
    the same set of facts to any number of people and have them reach different conclusions.

    When you restrict the facts people are allowed to consider, you probably increase the chances that people will reach the same conclusion.

    I think that's what happened here at TL: when considering "all" the information, there was more disagreement on a number of elements than there was about the correctness of the verdict that was reached on the basis of more limited evidence.

    Parent

    I am not exactly sure I know what scintilla means (none / 0) (#173)
    by Richjo on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 10:38:26 AM EST
    but in my opinion the idea that there is not a scintilla of evidence to suggest race was part of the case is preposterous.

    As someone who has been trained in the law as concerns discrimination in hiring it is my opinion that if George Zimmerman had made similar assumptions about someone for the same given reasons in a scenario where he was considering that person for a job, he would have a discrimination lawsuit on his hands; and one in my opinion he would probably have a hard time winning. Descriptions like he behaved strangely and there seemed to be something not right about him would not in my opinion stand up very well in such circumstances.

    Just because something can't be proven to the standard of a criminal proceeding does not mean there is no evidence to support it. That is in my opinion a preposterous assertion. It completely ignores the whole point of this thread which to emphasize that the criminal trial is not a search for truth. You are entitled to your opinion that race had nothing to do with this. If you believe you formed that opinion as an objective fact finder, rather than an a subjective and biased human being then in my opinion you are way off base. In complex and nuanced situations the idea objective fact finders are often going to fall well short of the truth.

    Maybe if you had written no evidence admissible for the purposes of a criminal trial suggests this case had anything to do with race you would be correct, but it is clear that is not what ABM is referring to in his post.  If that is what you meant to say though, my bad for misunderstanding you.

    Parent

    You use (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by jbindc on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 10:54:59 AM EST
    several "In my opinions" in your statement

    Proof?

    As someone who has been trained in the law as concerns discrimination in hiring it is my opinion that if George Zimmerman had made similar assumptions about someone for the same given reasons in a scenario where he was considering that person for a job, he would have a discrimination lawsuit on his hands; and one in my opinion he would probably have a hard time winning. Descriptions like he behaved strangely and there seemed to be something not right about him would not in my opinion stand up very well in such circumstances.

    Proof?

    If you can show the class that race had anything to do with this, then please share your information.  The only way to be sure would be to look into GZ's head at that moment and read his thoughts.  We can't do that, so unless you can show any proof that contradicts that, your "feelings" about the events aren't good enough - in a court of law, or anywhere else.

    (And your "feelings" also would not be good enough for an employment discrimination case either).

    Parent

    In such lawsuits (none / 0) (#183)
    by Richjo on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 11:40:15 AM EST
    you don't have the same burden of proof you have in a criminal trial. No one is dumb enough to flat out admit they acted out of racial bias, everyone knows that is against the law. There are no mind readers out there and yet there are successful discriminations actions all the time. The type of vague general descriptions that Zimmerman offered up which amounted to nothing more than his "feelings" would be a woefully inadequate defense. That is why people in positions responsible for hiring are taught and trained to avoid statements that are vague and difficult to document, quantify, and substantiate.

    But I don't know maybe your right- if you ever face such a lawsuit I suggest going with the minds can't be read defense. I am sure you won't have a hard time finding an expert witness to testify that  mind reading is in fact impossible. I am sure that strategy will be a real winner.

    Parent

    scintilla (5.00 / 8) (#180)
    by SuzieTampa on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 11:23:09 AM EST
    Richjo: I am not exactly sure I know what scintilla means

    This made me laugh. I hope I don't get deleted for being off-topic, but I worked for the Arkansas Democrat in the early 80s when Attorney General Steve Clark said in court that there wasn't a scintilla of evidence. This was back in the days when reporters called in their stories. The clerk taking dictation had never heard the word and typed "chinchilla" instead. The next day, the Democrat had to run a correction that Clark had made no reference to the small, furry beast.

    Parent

    you are so wrong (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by TeresaInPa on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 11:27:16 AM EST
    You should get to know more about GZ.  He's not a racist, indeed quite the opposite.
    But there is a school of thought that says if you can take an event and turn it upside down, view it through a prism, wearing your sun glasses, on the third tuesday of the month, in a month starting with the letter J, and it might look like racism, then it MUST be racism. You must subscribe to that school if you think saying someone acting funny equals "they are black". Huh?

    Parent
    Your opinion is that I am wrong (4.11 / 9) (#184)
    by Richjo on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 12:03:33 PM EST
    You do not have to be a racist in the sense of having animus towards all people of a particular race and desiring to see them harmed and oppressed to act in a way that makes assumptions about people on the basis of their race.

    I have seen a ton of evidence that suggests that George Zimmerman harbors no animosity towards African Americans that would prevent him from befriending and interacting with members of that community in positive and productive ways. That is not the same thing as evidence that George Zimmerman does not make assumptions about people he does not know on the basis of their appearance. There is nothing inherently wrong with this- everyone does it. What is important is how we act upon those assumptions, whether we are open to seeking out further information to test the validity of those assumptions rather than clinging to them and refusing to alter them even in the face of evidence that counters them. If we are willing to acknowledge that they are just assumptions and that a desire for truth forces us to go far beyond those assumptions, then there is nothing wrong with them. On the other hand if you feel entitled to act upon those assumptions in a way that affects others and that can create dangerous situations that can lead to misunderstandings and have tragic consequences, that is not acceptable.
    George Zimmerman made assumptions that night that turned out to be tragically wrong. You are entitled to your opinion that the incorrect assumptions he made had nothing to do with race, and even the more extreme claim that you have evidence to prove that GZ does not make any assumptions about people based on race or any other part of their appearance. That does not make either of those things true however- it just makes them your opinion.

    Parent

    If (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by morphic on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 02:56:49 PM EST
    you take the dispatcher call at face value, Zimmerman wasn't even certain  what race he was at first.

    Parent
    Somebody wandering slowly in the rain while (3.67 / 3) (#190)
    by Darby on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 12:34:51 PM EST
    Looking into houses, appearing to be on drugs (and in fact was) in a neighborhood with high crime is not reason enough to be suspicious and call theodicy -  without violating some kind of law?   Sounds like some kind of Orwellian state

    Parent
    Who said it was illegal? (4.00 / 4) (#193)
    by Yman on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 12:55:56 PM EST
    BTW - Martin was not "on drugs" - he had trace amounts of THC in his system.  Which might explain why Zimmerman never told the NEN dispatcher what "looks like he's on drugs or something" meant, although he later explained it was because Martin was looking around as he walked.  He couldn't explain what he meant by "something's wrong with him."

    No idea why Zimmerman never mentioned the "looking into a house (singular)" to the NEN dispatcher, considering that was a behavior that would actually be suspicious.

    Parent

    TM *could have* been impaired (5.00 / 2) (#213)
    by Synthesist on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 07:06:09 PM EST
    You should review the ME's revised opinion of the toxicology report. Apparently, in his pretrial deposition, the ME stated that the level of THC metabolites, in his opinion, would indicate that TM was not impaired. And therefore Judge Nelson granted the prosecutor's request to withhold that drug use evidence. But by the time the ME was to testify at the trial, he had done further research and changed his opinion. IIRC, he was now ready to testify that some THC metabolites found indicated that TM had ingested THC within 2 to 4 hours before he was killed, and therefore he could have been impaired. This forced the judge to reverse her earlier ruling to now allow the defense to raise the drug use toxicology in the trial. But, in the end it didn't even matter, as the defense decided not to raise the issue.

    Parent
    Yep ... all of which I already know (5.00 / 2) (#215)
    by Yman on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 07:22:23 PM EST
    My point was that it was not a fact that TM was "on drugs", as opposed to having trace amounts of THC  that l "could have" been from hours earlier, or could have been from days earlier.

    Parent
    Well, (none / 0) (#216)
    by Synthesist on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 07:34:42 PM EST
    If he could have been impaired, then he "was on drugs". That's my point.


    Parent
    Almost there (5.00 / 1) (#218)
    by Yman on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 07:43:34 PM EST
    If he could have been impaired, then he could have been on drugs ... or he could have not been on drugs ... as opposed to he was on drugs.

    See the difference?

    Parent

    And, (none / 0) (#217)
    by Synthesist on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 07:43:05 PM EST
    the fact that the judge was forced to reverse her exclusion of the toxicology report proves the significance of the level of THC found.

    Parent
    He was not (3.40 / 5) (#192)
    by Angel on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 12:46:48 PM EST
    Looking into houses


    Parent
    TM took over 40 minutes to walk 1/2 mile (3.83 / 6) (#195)
    by ragebot on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 01:58:46 PM EST
    Most folks would take 8-10 minutes to cover that distance, I can do it in 6-7, but I am a runner.

    Lets also keep in mind that most folks would be walking faster if it was raining.  TM also had a four minute head start to cover about 200 feet and get safely to the condo he was staying at if he wanted to get away from GZ.

    There have been several places where the timeline was considered the key to this case.  TM was on video leaving the 7-11 and kinda loitering outside talking to three guys who went inside and then came back out and one of them talked to TM.  He then left and took the 40 minutes to cover the 1/2 mile back to the T.

    While there is no law against walking slowly in the rain on a rather disjointed path through a condo complex lets not pretend it would not raise eye brows, especially for a member of a neighborhood watch group.

    Parent

    Sure are purty houses here... (3.40 / 5) (#201)
    by Visteo1 on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 04:21:50 PM EST
    Dispatcher: OK, he's just walking around the area...
    Zimmerman: ...looking at all the houses.

    Parent
    Big Difference (4.20 / 5) (#204)
    by daring grace on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 05:13:56 PM EST
    between looking AT houses and looking INTO houses...

    Parent
    People go and look AT houses (5.00 / 1) (#205)
    by Politalkix on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 05:22:27 PM EST
    in a neighborhood to get a feel for a neighborhood before buying a house!

    Parent
    Yep (3.67 / 6) (#203)
    by Yman on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 05:12:50 PM EST
    ... and later, that became looking "into" a house.  Funny he didn't think to mention it to the NEN dispatcher, though.

    Not to mention the fact that it would be difficult to walk through a dense, townhouse development without "looking at all the houses", unless you look straight up at the sky or down at the ground - which, of course, would look suspicious.

    Parent

    Visteo1 needs to brush up on the *facts* of (2.00 / 4) (#209)
    by Angel on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 05:56:43 PM EST
    the case.

    Parent
    Why is that? (3.67 / 3) (#224)
    by Visteo1 on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 08:19:39 PM EST
    Do you suppose that to be a doctored transcript?  I didn't pull the lines from NBC.

    What is your opinion, Angel:

    http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/326700-full-transcript-zimmerman.html

    Parent

    Did I just heard juror B29 (5.00 / 2) (#147)
    by DennisD on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 11:52:18 PM EST
    say on Nightline that for Zimmerman to be guilty of manslaughter he had to have left his house intending to kill Trayvon? Wow.

    Yes, and I think she's referring to (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by Teresa on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 12:00:01 AM EST
    all that happened prior to the fight. If you listen to her and what juror 37 said about the holdout, it's the only thing that makes sense, since she said "by the law" they couldn't find him guilty.

    Her lawyer should have prepared her better.

    Parent

    I Don't Think So (5.00 / 1) (#228)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 08:48:55 PM EST
    Video, 6:56

    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'.

    B-29 didn't express herself very clearly. I take her to have been talking about what the jurors were 'trying to figure out' at the time the note was sent, not her understanding at the time she was speaking.

    Parent

    Here's the full video (5.00 / 3) (#178)
    by SuzieTampa on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 11:12:41 AM EST
    as far as I can tell.

    I feel sorry for B29, who many are treating like a "race traitor." It's also scary how popular opinion might sway jurors (as well as witnesses). I'm glad this jury was sequestered.

    Talk about leading the witness: Robin Roberts was biased throughout. B29 blamed the law, but Roberts didn't ask (and no one seems to ask anyone) how B29 thinks the law should be changed. Do they want to change self-defense laws so that the burden of proof falls on the defendant? Do they want a defendant found guilty if he did something to provoke the victim, even if the defendant had no intention of provoking a fight?  

    There has... (5.00 / 3) (#225)
    by DebFrmHell on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 08:20:57 PM EST
    been some reporting thru the Slate that the ABC tape may have been altered.  The editing seems to have been done to change the context of the original.

    If true, nothing surprises me anymore about this case and how it continues to be portrayed by the media.

    Parent

    Sybrina Fulton's focus on a bad law (5.00 / 2) (#212)
    by woodchuck64 on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 06:44:31 PM EST
    A little off topic, but this recent speech by Sybrina Fulton to the National Urban League mentioned on Reuters leads me to speculate she is not thinking of a civil case and may be moving into politics instead.
    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.

    This sounds like an admission that Zimmerman was within the law and would seem poorly considered if a civil suit is planned in the future.  However, if she and her foundation intend to affect political change, this would be the right first step.


    That's pretty confused (5.00 / 2) (#222)
    by txantimedia on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 08:08:18 PM EST
    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.
    Trayvon won't graduate, go to college or have children because George Zimmerman killed him, not because a law did or didn't exist.  Even if there were no self defense laws and George was in jail, none of that would bring her son back.

    Parent
    As Jeralyn wrote last year (5.00 / 2) (#220)
    by SuzieTampa on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 07:56:27 PM EST
    David Chico was the prosecutor on the 2005 charge against GZ. I just watched the NBC video and it's really over the top, with his booking photo moving around strangely.

    William Saleton link (5.00 / 1) (#227)
    by SuzieTampa on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 08:35:28 PM EST
    In Slate, he does compare the different versions broadcast by ABC, and I agree that the editing changed the meaning.

    From what I saw, juror B29 (5.00 / 3) (#230)
    by DennisD on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 10:38:16 PM EST
    is completely lost. She doesn't understand manslaughter, she can't possibly understand 2nd degree if she can't comprehend manslaughter, and I doubt she fully understands self-defense or reasonable doubt.

    I'm not judging her and I feel for her, but something needs to be corrected if a juror like this can decide a citizen's fate.

    Mark O'Mara wrote about B29 (4.50 / 2) (#221)
    by SuzieTampa on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 08:03:23 PM EST
    He calls her a model juror.

    AT and INTO (3.50 / 2) (#232)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Sat Jul 27, 2013 at 10:53:46 AM EST
    2/26 written statement (p.1)
    Tonight, I was on my way to the grocery store when I saw a male approximately 5'11" to 6'2" casually walking in the rain looking into homes. I pulled my vehicle over and called SPD non-emergency phone number.

    SPD 2/29-1, 7:41-54

    Zimmerman: So when I saw him, in the same area, in front of the guy's house that I know [unintelligible] had been unsecured, and he was looking into the house, I just thought something doesn't fit right here.


    I think she meant (3.40 / 5) (#18)
    by NYShooter on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 03:58:26 PM EST
    "it should never had gone to trial," because the way the law is written proving intentional murder was virtually impossible. It's not "confused" at all to believe he was guilty of murder, but the text in the law precluded them from voting that way.

    I don't know if she's right, or wrong, but to intimate that she's somehow "muddled," or "disjointed" in her thinking is, simply, unfair. The Law may be "muddled," and/or, "disjointed," but, she isn't.

    She's completely muddled (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 04:00:50 PM EST
    And super duper kudos to Jeralyn for pointing that out.

    Extremely fair of you J.

    Parent

    There's nothing... (none / 0) (#32)
    by firstfall on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 04:33:23 PM EST
    ..special about the self-defense instructions issued in this case. While there was an SYG blurb about no duty to retreat, it wasn't applicable in this case. The self-defense law that's applicable has been around for centuries.

    Parent
    she said GZ didn't shoot TM (none / 0) (#130)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 10:28:21 PM EST
    intentionally. Huh?  He did shoot him intentionally.  He intended to shoot TM to force him to stop beating him (GZ).

    Parent
    No. She did not use that verb (5.00 / 3) (#132)
    by Towanda on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 10:39:52 PM EST
    in that instance, according to reported quotes:

    "That's where I felt confused, where if a person kills someone, then you get charged for it," Maddy told Roberts. "But as the law was read to me, if you have no proof that he killed him intentionally, you can't say he's guilty."

    She said "killed him intentionally" -- not "shoot," not "murder," etc.  It may seem an insignificant difference in verb choice, but I can see how it can be construed differently.  

    And to your point, there is shooting and then there is shooting to kill.  That did not come up in the trial, as I recall, as to whether Zimmerman may have intended only to injure.

    Anyway:  Of course -- you did not do this -- other sources already are misquoting her as saying that Zimmerman "murdered him intentionally."  This is adding to so much misinformation, so many myths in this case; it's stunning to see how fast it happens in this age.  

    By the way, in this instance in the interview, in making a legalistic statement, she steers clear of the verb "murder" with its legal meanings.  I think that adds weight to the interpretation of others here that when the phrase "got away with murder" was used -- by the interviewer first, as I recall -- the juror was acquiescing to the colloquial meaning of the term "murder."

    Parent

    probably (5.00 / 2) (#134)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 10:41:38 PM EST
    probably meaning that gz did not shoot tm with the intent to kill tm, but that gz did shoot tm with the intention of stopping the beating.

    Parent
    Visteo1 - GZ said TM was looking AT houses, (3.00 / 4) (#231)
    by Angel on Sat Jul 27, 2013 at 10:01:26 AM EST
    not INTO houses.  Huge difference.  Facts are facts whether or not you like them.  

    Gabby, as far as I could tell. Conflicting statements. Parroting Robin Roberts' words.

    I must admit I have not been all that impressed with either of the jurors so far, though I recognize they are not practiced or trained at being interviewed on TV which can be stressful...

    ...and Robin, I'm only occasionally aware of you when my wife has the TV on, and I do understand that you've been sick, but for gawd's sake, eat something. And get a new DP, your lighting is horrendous.

    This is interesting: (none / 0) (#1)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 02:59:52 PM EST
    "That's where I felt confused, where if a person kills someone, then you get charged for it," Maddy said. "But as the law was read to me, if you have no proof that he killed him intentionally, you can't say he's guilty."


    Jeralyn or Oculus, if a juror shows that (none / 0) (#3)
    by Cashmere on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 03:06:51 PM EST
    they reached a verdict, yet misunderstood their instructions, as with this "intent" issue, is there any recourse the state has to push for a new trial or something?  I think that would be double jeopardy, but I guess I'm asking if the juror can be dertimined to be incompetent in their verdict, or something.

    Just curious.. Thanks!

    Parent

    The prosecution has (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 03:13:28 PM EST
    no remedy in either the trial court or the appellate courts after an acquittal in a criminal case.  

    Parent
    Thanks oculus! nm (none / 0) (#10)
    by Cashmere on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 03:21:53 PM EST
    no remedy (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 05:21:40 PM EST
    no retrial.

    Parent
    The Court of Public Opinion has no double (none / 0) (#78)
    by Visteo1 on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 07:31:14 PM EST
    jeopardy.  This just in..

    "PLEASE ACT NOW and contact Prosecutors for an APPEAL. Your case report narrative provides the Prosecutors with very good GROUNDS FOR AN APPEAL and/or REVERSAL OF VERDICT... The Juror B39 interview is evidence to support the appeal and verdict reversal... It is direct public knowledge now that the Jurors received wrong jury instructions, mis-interpreted the law because they received wrong jury instructions, and applied the law incorrectly...all of this led to VERDICT... The law was mis-stated, and the jury did seek clarification as a result and then were not given answer to their question to the Court during deliberations... There is enough aftermath to file APPEAL and/or REVERSE VERDICT... PRESSURE STATE PROSECUTORS to seek and file APPEAL so that this case does not become precedent defense case for future crimes against similar victims.... CALL AL SHARPTON, ANDERSON COOPER and any other supporters IMMEDIATELY to pressure the Prosecutors to APPEAL before Court deadline expires..."

    Remember to mention you want this addressed in  CPO where double jeopardy does not apply.

    Parent

    that's pretty wrong (none / 0) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 04:08:59 PM EST
    according to Jeralyn. I quote:

    "Of course, the jury instructions specifically said Zimmerman did not have to intend to kill Martin to be found guilty of either Murder 2 or Manslaughter. He just had to have intentionally committed the act that resulted in his death, i.e., he had to have intended to shoot him."

    BTD, I deleted that comment (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 05:03:50 PM EST
    by JBInc. It was flat out wrong. Murder 1 requires an intent to kill, Murder 2 and manslaughter do not. Not even a close questions and more importantly, the jury instructions for both counts said so explicitly.

    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

    Zimmerman never denied he intentionally pulled out his gun to shoot Martin. So only if the state proved the killing was not in self-defense could the jury find him not guilty of manslaughter.

    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.


    Parent
    Why Doesn't This Fit? (1.00 / 1) (#69)
    by RickyJim on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 06:40:51 PM EST
    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.

    Part of the Excusable Homicide section reads
    The killing of a human being is excusable, and therefor lawful under any one of the three following circumstances.
    2. When the killing occurs by accident and misfortune in the heat of passion under any sudden and sufficient provocation,

    It can be argued that Martin and Zimmerman, by accident and misfortune, met at the T and misunderstanding each others intentions, a physical struggle was suddenly provoked that lead in the heat of passion to Martin's death.  

    Parent
    no it cannot mean that (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 08:30:57 PM EST
    it clearly says "When the killing occurs by accident and misfortune". The killing is the shooting, not what preceded it. How they came to encounter one another is not "the killing."

    You also left off the third one which says:

    When the killing is committed by accident and misfortune resulting from a sudden combat, if a dangerous weapon is not used and the killing is not done in a cruel or unusual manner.

    No one argued the killing was excusable because under the law and instructions, the facts do not fit. Zimmerman never denied he intentionally shot at Martin. He never claimed accident.

    Parent

    Jurors Instructed on Killing? (none / 0) (#161)
    by RickyJim on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 07:59:30 AM EST
    Why should I have mentioned 3?  It is clear that the homicide is excusable if a single one of the three listed conditions hold.  I can't find anything in the instructions saying:
    The killing is the shooting, not what preceded it. How they came to encounter one another is not "the killing."
    Since AFAIK, no juror has explained yet the exact part of the jury instructions that lead them to check the not guilty line on the verdict form, it still remains a possibility that they regarded the killing as excusable homicide for the reasons I gave.

    Parent
    Well Maybe B37 Was Explicit (5.00 / 2) (#162)
    by RickyJim on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 08:27:46 AM EST
    COOPER: So whether it was George Zimmerman getting out of the vehicle, whether he was right to get out of the vehicle, whether he was a wannabe cop, whether he was overeager, none of that in the final analysis, mattered. What mattered was those seconds before the shot went off, did George Zimmerman fear for his life?

    JUROR: Exactly. That's exactly what happened.

    COOPER: And you have no -- do you have any doubt that George Zimmerman feared for his life?

    JUROR: I had no doubt George feared for his life in the situation he was in at the time.

    I agree that she relied on the Justifiable Homicide section of the jury instructions in her not guilty determination.  However 4 other jurors have said that B37 did not speak for them so we can't say they didn't rely on another part.  And as far as B29, who can say what part she even understood?

    Parent
    What about the ill will, (none / 0) (#58)
    by ExcitableBoy on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 05:41:57 PM EST
    malice, etc.? I thought from the trial that that had to be a component of a Murder 2 conviction, not just that he intended to commit the act that led to the death.

    Parent
    the ill will applies to murder 2 (5.00 / 3) (#90)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 08:19:53 PM EST
    but not manslaughter.

    They were instructed to decide the murder 2 first, and only if they agreed it was NOT proven, should they move on to manslaughter.

    That's the purpose of a lesser included offense. The jury first determines the greater offense. If proven, they return a guilty verdict. If not proven, they move on to the lesser offense.

    In this case manslaughter was a necessarily lesser included offense which means all the elements of manslaughter are in murder 2, but murder 2 has one or more additional elements. Murder 2 has the added element of ill will.

    The jury rejected murder 2 because they didn't find ill-will. They didn't even need to consider self-defense. Then they got to manslaughter, the lesser included. Zimmerman's conduct fit the two elements, but then they had to find whether the killing was justified in self-defense.

    This is where they were confused, and sent out a question. B-37 said their question was not specific, but one or two of the jurors wanted to know if they could consider acts leading up to the shooting in determining if it was self-defense.

    The answer is obviously no, because the instructions clearly told them (as the law states) that a person is justified in using deadly force if at the time deadly force is used, he reasonably believed it was necessary to prevent imminent great bodily harm.

    The state knew this and argued ill-will for the murder 2 conviction. It didn't focus on manslaughter which it well knew had nothing to do with acts leading up to the shooting.

    Self-defense has nothing to do with acts leading up to the shooting.

    If you re-listen to what B-37 said, she makes this clear. It is not contradictory to what B-29 said.

    The difference is that we know B37 thought GZ acted in self-defense, and we don't know what B-29 thought about self-defense: whether she merely thought the state disproved it or whether at the time she too believed he acted in self-defense.

    It seems to me, and this is opinion, that after learning the public reaction to the verdict, she fears being stigmatized and ostracized, so she is coming forward to say "Don't hate me, I thought that's what the law required."

    Holding out for one day is not "the bitter end". Her attempt to blame the decision on the jury instructions, which after 9 hours or review she agreed required a not guilty verdict, seems like revisionism to me and an attempt to not be viewed as a "traitor."

    She had her lawyer sitting next to her. He obviously reviewed the instructions with her after the verdict. Since she still insists her verdict was the right one according to the law, it's evident that regardless of how she explains what she thought then, she has since had it explained by a lawyer and still believes she made the right legal call.

    Parent

    Interesting parsing. (none / 0) (#91)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 08:24:01 PM EST
    oculus, stop the one line (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 09:52:42 PM EST
    drive by comments please. And the off topic one liners  about other countries and jury nullification. If you have something substantive to say about the topic, which is juror B 29, feel free to state it. Otherwise, spare us your quips.

    There is no "parsing." Either point out how and why something is not stated correctly, or don't waste our time.

    Parent

    you might start with the discussion (none / 0) (#125)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 09:54:26 PM EST
    the day of the verdict when the jurors asked their question about manslaughter, and juror B37's interview explaining it, which does not contradict what B29 said.

    Parent
    Puzzled by the passing on the parsing (none / 0) (#102)
    by Visteo1 on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 08:49:41 PM EST
    Talking about the (none / 0) (#60)
    by jbindc on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 05:48:27 PM EST
    general definition of "murder", as opposed to the state law, since NYShooter was using the term generically, and so was, I believe, this juror when she said he got away with murder.

    Parent
    actually she was responding to (none / 0) (#127)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 09:56:00 PM EST
    to Robin Roberts who asked the question how she would respond to people who say he got away with murder. Roberts used the phrase, and she answered, he got away with murder. And made it clear she meant in a moral sense, not a legal one.

    Parent
    So basically (1.00 / 3) (#52)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 05:25:23 PM EST
    This woman misinterpreted the jury instructions (and it stands to reason that the other jurors did too) so the verdict we got could have been reached because none of them understood what they were doing.

    Great.

    Yeah, that didn't make me any more depressed about this case or anything.

    Parent

    How do you feel (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by jbindc on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 05:52:30 PM EST
    About the fact that she thinks the court case was a publicity stunt?

    Parent
    no it does not mean the others (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 08:32:31 PM EST
    misinterpreted the instructions.

    B 37's understood them and believed GZ was justified in killing Martin in self-defense.

    B-29 is speaking for herself.


    Parent

    Don't be ridiculous (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Jack203 on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 08:41:04 PM EST
    ABG

    Parent
    She seems to have understood (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by Char Char Binks on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 09:15:11 PM EST
    the instructions, and that the verdict was wildly unpopular with vast numbers of the public.  It seems to me she wants to deflect blame away from herself onto the instructions, onto the letter of the law, and even onto the other jurors (she was the holdout, the one who stood up for what was supposedly morally right, at least for awhile.)

    Parent
    why does it stand to reason (5.00 / 2) (#133)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 10:40:26 PM EST
    that all the jurors misunderstood the instructions?  Fist of all this juror did not.  She understood them perfectly and did the right thing.  She just felt bad that she could not somehow find a way to punish GZ for the sake of TM's mother or some such nonsense.  In the end she followed the law...BRAVO.  The system worked.

    Parent
    I doubt the juror (none / 0) (#31)
    by jbindc on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 04:28:35 PM EST
    has been reading Jeralyn.

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

    And that's not how NYSHooter was using the term.

    Parent

    Or the jury instructions (none / 0) (#40)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 04:48:31 PM EST
    Apparently the jury instructions (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 04:50:32 PM EST
    were read to her, not read by her.

    Parent
    they reviewed the jury instructions (none / 0) (#50)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 05:20:11 PM EST
    for 9 hours and you don't know that they weren't passed around so all could see for themselves.

    Parent
    Here is my source: (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 05:35:00 PM EST
    "As the law was read to me, if you have no proof that he killed him intentionally, you can't say he's guilty," she said.


    Parent
    my point is she didn't (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 07:56:38 PM EST
    say she never read them herself in addition to someone else reading them. She also cold have been using the word "read" to mean "explained."

    She could have had them "read" to her after or before reading them herself, and not understood them, and relied on others' re-reading or explaining them to her.

    Your implication is she robotically accepted what others read to her and never bothered to read them herself, and I don't think you can make that assumption from what she said. It's one possible interpretation.

    Parent

    Yeah... (none / 0) (#143)
    by bmaz on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 11:46:04 PM EST
    The primacy is always the instructions "as read" by the judge. Really does not address whether this juror, or any juror, reviewed them during deliberation. I take nothing, necessarily, from that phrasing.

    Parent
    As the law was read to me . . . (none / 0) (#136)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 10:51:08 PM EST
    She seems to be a lady who makes her decisions by what others are telling her . . . and this applied in the jury room, and now it applies afterwards . . .

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#39)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 04:44:12 PM EST
    those comments were deleted (5.00 / 3) (#49)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 05:18:47 PM EST
    they were based on a false assertion. A killing that results from the justifiable use of force is not "technically a murder." It is not a crime at all, it is lawful conduct. The jury was correctly instructed:

    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....

    Murder 2 by definition required the state to prove "There was an unlawful killing of Trayvon Martin."

    Parent

    How does it stand to reason... (none / 0) (#61)
    by citizenjeff on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 05:50:01 PM EST
    that all six jurors didn't understand the instructions?

    that comment was deleted because (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 06:40:32 PM EST
    juror B-29's interview does not say all six had that erroneous belief.

    Parent
    Juror qualifications (none / 0) (#76)
    by rage of on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 07:29:04 PM EST
    It is not clear to me if a juror has to be able to read.  In this case it is also not clear who was doing the reading, B29 or someone else.

    I also wonder if a juror  could be excused because they could not read.

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Cylinder on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 07:39:02 PM EST
    In my layperson understanding, the candidates are required to fill out a questionnaire by themselves and without help. One potential juror was dismissed for getting another to help fill out the questionnaire.

    Parent
    Jurors like B29 (none / 0) (#87)
    by DennisD on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 08:05:35 PM EST
    should put the fear of God into any defendant. With jurors like her you may as well ask for a judge to hear your case. At least a judge can fully grasp the facts and law.

    May explain the number of plea bargains (none / 0) (#104)
    by ruffian on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 08:56:48 PM EST
    If a) you can't get a lawyer as good as Jeralyn or O'Mara and
    b) you can't trust a jury to understand all the circumstances and the law

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

    Real world consequences for "Johnny can't read", in all aspects of the justice system.

    Parent

    or the facts are so horrible you don't (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 09:38:53 PM EST
    trust a jury to get past them and fairly apply the law, or the defendant has a bad prior criminal record or ugly prior similar act evidence which has been ruled admissible before trial.

    And yes, many plea bargains are agreed to by defendants simply because they are unwilling to take the risk a jury will convict them, especially in cases where the stakes are double-digit or life sentences, like murder or some drug cases. It's not so much a question of what are the chances of success, but an evaluation of the risk/reward ratio. Is it better to take x years now than risk xx years or life if a jury disagrees? Juries are unpredictable for the most part.

    Also, there are some cases in which it is obvious the client cannot win, no matter how skilled the lawyer.  Rule #1 of criminal defense when preparing a case and developing a theory of defense is to accept the facts beyond change. When the facts and the law are against you, and a court has ruled prior to trial adverse evidence and testimony will come in (or a particular defense can't be raised) there's little reason to go to trial, unless there's a really strong appellate issue on something like suppression of evidence or admissibility of a confession or prior bad acts evidence. When such cases do end up going to trial, it's likely because no reasonable plea offer was made; there's not going to be much difference in sentence whether the defendant is found guilty through a plea or trial; or the client just cannot be persuaded a plea is in his or her best interest.

    Look at the Aurora theatre shootings case. The defendant offered to plead guilty and take a life sentence. The state rejected it because it wants the death penalty. What other option does the defense have besides going to trial?

    Parent

    I never paid so much attention to the (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by ruffian on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 09:54:18 PM EST
    influence of the pre-trial evidence challenges until I started reading your posts. It makes perfect sense when you explain it, but I used to not pay attention to cases until they were actually in trial. Now I see how much goes into determining if there will even be a trial.

    The risk/reward ratio was what I was alluding to. I think I would be the type to not risk much on an unpredictable jury, but of course it depends on all the other factors you mention.

    Totally agree on the Aurora case. Of course they should go to trial if there is a chance to save his life.

    Parent

    My WAG on her use of "intent" (none / 0) (#99)
    by Teresa on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 08:44:19 PM EST
    Putting together what she said with what B-37 said about the "holdout", intent to her meant "lead up", could he be held responsible for all the actions prior to the actual fight/shooting (getting out of the car, etc).

    From B-37:

    COOPER: Can you talk about the process of the other jurors changing their minds? You talked about the first juror went from second-degree murder to manslaughter, then put out the question to the judge for manslaughter.

    JUROR B37: Uh-huh.

    COOPER: And then it was basically because of the jury's reading of the law that everybody finally decided manslaughter doesn't hold?

    JUROR B37: That's exactly why.

    COOPER: Was there any holdout?

    JUROR B37: There was a holdout, and probably -- well, we had another vote, and then everybody voted -- put it in the little tin. We had a little tin, folded all our little papers and put it in to vote, and she was the last one to vote. And it took probably another 30 minutes for her to decide that she could not find anything else to hold George on, because you want to find him guilty of something. She wanted to find him guilty of something, but couldn't because of the law, the way the law is written. He wasn't responsible for negligible [I think this is from J's "negligent" part of instructions quoted above] things that he had done leading up to that point.

    July 16 inteview


    COOPER: You sent a question out to the judge about manslaughter?

    JUROR: Yes.

    COOPER: And about --

    JUROR: What could be applied to the manslaughter. We were looking at the self-defense. One of the girls said that -- asked if you can put all the leading things into that one moment where he feels it's a matter of life or death to shoot this boy, or if it was just at the heat of passion at that moment.

    COOPER: So that juror wanted to know whether the things that had brought George Zimmerman to that place, not just in the minute or two before the shot actually went off.

    JUROR: Exactly.

    COOPER: But earlier that day, even prior crime?

    JUROR: Not prior crimes, just the situation leading to it, all the steps -- as the ball got rolling, if all that --

    COOPER: From him getting -- spotting Trayvon Martin, to getting out of his vehicle to follow him, whether all of that could play a role in --

    JUROR: Determining the self-defense or not.



    July 15 portion

    This is long and I copied it if I need to shorten it, etc.

    Headline (none / 0) (#108)
    by EHJ on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 09:04:44 PM EST
    Why is  " Zimmerman Juror B-29 Speaks: Race Not an Issue" the headline instead of "Zimmerman Juror B-29 Speaks: Zimmerman "Got Away With Murder"? Surely the second quote is the most astonishing thing she has been quoted as saying. The first juror to speak said that race played no role in their decision making. Even if that  makes no sense to me, the notion that race played no role is not what makes this particular interview newsworthy.

    What's newsworthy isn't the main (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by Teresa on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 09:44:03 PM EST
    thing remaining legally. The race issue is the only criminal issue left and the DOJ is investigating that now.

    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

    I don't know if their opinions matter to the DOJ. I guess if they're considering if the trial was done correctly, they should, but that might be immaterial to them. I wish I knew if that matters.

    Parent

    DOJ is bound by the law (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 09:47:47 PM EST
    It is calming the fires by saying it will investigate. But it's obvious to me (and others familiar with the laws) that no charges will be brought. It will not bring charges it does not believe can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. It would be a violation of their sworn duty to do so.

    Parent
    Did that stop Corey? (5.00 / 2) (#123)
    by Darby on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 09:52:51 PM EST
    from (5.00 / 2) (#165)
    by morphic on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 08:55:52 AM EST
    prosecuting one of the weakest cases, beyond mass hysteria and wishful thinking, I've ever seen. This is criminal, IMO.

    Parent
    because the public outcry (5.00 / 4) (#119)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 09:45:51 PM EST
    over the verdict has been about race, which in my view (and apparently the jurors) was not a factor in the case. Two jurors have now said so, as has an alternate. But the public focus, protests and demonization of Zimmerman is still based on the unsupported notion he acted out of racial animus.

    Her moral views of the verdict are irrelevant and unimportant. It's her support for the legality of the verdict and her rejection of the public's view that race was a factor in the case that warrants mention.

    Parent

    Thank you! (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by bmaz on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 11:50:58 PM EST
    Exactly.

    Parent
    As Mark O'Mara put it (5.00 / 2) (#181)
    by Nemi on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 11:23:50 AM EST
    when asked by Sunny Hostin: Do you think this case was about race?

    On the outside of the courtroom, absolutely. On the inside of the courtroom, it wasn't.


    Parent
    Ummmm (none / 0) (#109)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 09:08:17 PM EST
    Why is it not the headline you like? Best bet, because it is not your blog..  

    Parent
    I'll guess (none / 0) (#117)
    by Cylinder on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 09:41:54 PM EST
    This blog has fairly has maintained a fairly consistent editorial position that it would not be used to misstate law - even by proxy. Since the juror herself admits the state never proved murder, then it would be pure speculation if Zimmerman got away with it. On one hand she is clear that the state never proved murder. On the other she repeats the interviewer's suggestion that "Zimmerman got away with murder." Both of those statements cannot survive a narrow view of the facts.

    Parent
    This article says Good Morning (none / 0) (#126)
    by Teresa on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 09:55:38 PM EST
    America, but the video seems to be from tonight. I didn't see it, but the newscaster says "tonight" when introducing it. It's not Diane Sawyer but she may be on vacation. Did anyone see it?

    Video

    I believe (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by PM on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 10:08:10 PM EST
    ABC is airing the B29 interview in 3 parts.

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

    The 2nd part will be on Nightline tonight.

    The complete interview will be on Good Morning America tomorrow morning.

    Parent

    Have A Cigar (5.00 / 2) (#131)
    by Cylinder on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 10:32:48 PM EST
    And did we tell you the name of the game, boy?
    We call it Riding the Gravy Train.

    Roger Waters from the Pink Floyd album Wish You Were Here, 1975

    Parent

    "Wishing"? (none / 0) (#168)
    by melamineinNY on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 09:31:48 AM EST
    Teresa, I'm interested in whether (none / 0) (#135)
    by ruffian on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 10:44:25 PM EST
    this juror believed the self-defense case. Does she say anything about that? I know you will watch!

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

    It does seem that they were very methodical and didn't jump right to the crucial question of self defense.

    Parent

    I am, too, Ruffian (none / 0) (#137)
    by Teresa on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 10:51:38 PM EST
    She didn't say in the portion they showed tonight. I'll watch Nightline and then probably a tape of the GMA complete interview.

    If I see her answer that question (assuming they ask it and then assuming they even show it), I'll link it for you.

    Parent

    Unless you have... (none / 0) (#139)
    by bmaz on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 11:22:48 PM EST
    ...some evidence indicating the juror has a monetary interest in this, PLEASE stop saying "It's about the money".

    I deleted that comment for (none / 0) (#141)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 11:34:10 PM EST
    impugning the juror claiming monetary motives when no facts have been provided to support it. It's just juror bashing.

    Parent
    Nightline (none / 0) (#145)
    by PM on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 11:51:28 PM EST
    On Nightline the interview was so chopped up, it was almost incoherent but:

    B29 "I had no idea the world was watching so closely. I fell to the ground and cried hysterically when I got home and heard all the comments. I'm a minority and now I feel like I let minorities down with my vote."

    Yes, only muddied the waters (none / 0) (#149)
    by Teresa on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 11:58:09 PM EST
    more for me.

    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.

    It was so chopped up with clips of last year and the trial, it was hard to follow. I noticed they still left out the "Okay" to "we don't need you to do that (follow)".

    Parent

    Teresa (none / 0) (#151)
    by PM on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 12:04:33 AM EST
    Did you catch what B29's attorney said right after B29 made the comment on "what we would have had to have found to find him guilty of manslaughter?" Was he making a clarification?

    Parent
    I was trying to take notes so I (none / 0) (#152)
    by Teresa on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 12:12:27 AM EST
    didn't hear him closely. I thought he was saying that in looking at the facts (pre-trial) that manslaughter was their only chance (as opposed to Murder Two is what I thought).

    I'll check for a video and watch him again, if they put one up. Sorry I didn't pay attention to that part closely.

    I wish he'd have explained "intent" to her prior to the interview. I can't believe he didn't discuss that with her since it was her main argument.

    Parent

    Isn't the purpose of the interview to hear what th (none / 0) (#155)
    by oculus on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 01:44:07 AM EST
    individual juror share her thoughtsbabout the trial?  Why would you prefer her lawyer advise her prior to the interview what  she should say?

    Parent
    I don't mean he should tell her (none / 0) (#156)
    by Teresa on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 02:06:29 AM EST
    what to express as her opinion at all. That's hers and she's entitled to it. Just to explain to her when she says "intent", that's not the same "intent" that's in the instructions.

    I know what I take from her saying "intent" and I don't think it's the same intent we read in the instructions. If it is, she truly didn't understand. That's what I think he should have prepared her for. Why have a lawyer with you, if not?

    Parent

    Does it bother anybody that (none / 0) (#187)
    by ragebot on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 12:27:08 PM EST
    Someone serving on a jury has a lawyer.

    Not to say if I was in B29's position I would not retain one.

    Same goes for TM's parents having a lawyer.  I can understand one for the civil suit, but every time they are on TV Crump seems to be by their side.

    I also have to wonder if being beside a client on national, or local, TV qualifies for billable hours.

    I spend more time at VC than here and would note that there have been many threads, and many more comments, about the source of the low public opinion of lawyers.

    While I have no issue with lawyers defending clients in criminal or civil cases when I see a lawyer on TV blabbing, or having their client blab, about something I have to wonder if this does adversely affect the judicial process; not to mention lower the public opinion of lawyers.

    Parent

    Disincentives for hung jury (none / 0) (#146)
    by rob411 on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 11:52:02 PM EST
    Are there any disincentives to prevent a jurors from hanging the jury?

    What i mean is, do they have to point to something specific in the jury instructions to explain their dissenting vote? Can a judge decide a juror is acting in bad faith?

    There must be something to incentivize 12 people to agree on something.

    No (none / 0) (#148)
    by bmaz on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 11:57:04 PM EST
    it is all about common agreement and verdict. The pressures are moral, legal and group based. Individuals participate and the group decides. There must be unanimity.

    Parent
    In FL state court criminal cases is the judge (none / 0) (#194)
    by oculus on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 01:42:55 PM EST
    permitted to send the jury back for further deliberation after they send out a note stating they are unable to reach a verdict?

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#196)
    by ragebot on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 02:03:37 PM EST
    But the judge can only read an Allen Charge to the jury once.

    Parent
    Bad faith juror (none / 0) (#191)
    by ragebot on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 12:42:44 PM EST
    Can be an ill defined term.  If a juror reports to a judge that another juror has been doing investigating on his own, say by using the internet, and is basing their position on that investigation that juror can be warned, or excused, by the judge.  This is one of the reasons the alternate jurors are selected and kept around for the whole trial.

    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.

    The issue in the case is the jurors wanting to vote not guilty can ask a juror wanting to vote guilty what they base guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on.  In the Zimmerman case this is a tall order and I expect it was fairly easy to convince any holdout there was not guild beyond a reasonable doubt.

    Parent

    Here is the (none / 0) (#154)
    by Teresa on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 01:29:39 AM EST
    Nighline Video.

    Her lawyer said in researching the case, he didn't know of another charge they could have charged him with other than manslaughter. (I think in response to her wanting him to be guilty of something.)

    I noticed that not only did ABC leave out the "okay", they used the 2005 mugshot of GZ as a picture of him.

    Ruffian - no discussion of self-defense. I guess we'll have to wait for the full interview and hope RR asks it.

    Confusing (5.00 / 2) (#157)
    by Cylinder on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 02:41:27 AM EST
    Thanks for the link - that's one confusing interview.

    She asserts that to find Zimmerman guilty of manslaughter, she would have to find that he left his house with the purpose of killing Martin. Her attorney agreed that the manslaughter instruction was too confusing. Regardless of whatever misunderstanding of the instructions was present for her, her description of trying to find an instruction that matched a guilty verdict is also a description of reasonable doubt, in my layperson opinion.

    Parent

    the plot never disappoints (5.00 / 2) (#210)
    by lily on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 06:13:26 PM EST
    from her attorney website

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

    link

    link


    Parent

    I wonder if others read those links (5.00 / 3) (#219)
    by SuzieTampa on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 07:47:06 PM EST
    They are conservative opinion pieces taken from other sources, and they don't seem flattering to his client. Now I'm even more confused.

    Parent
    This is very perplexing... (5.00 / 3) (#223)
    by Cashmere on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 08:09:14 PM EST
    I just read them.

    Parent
    THAT is her lawyer??? (5.00 / 1) (#226)
    by Teresa on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 08:26:52 PM EST
    At least someone representing his website. Wow, way to make your client look good (not).

    I re-watched the Nightline video, and that website is his.

    Parent

    GMA (none / 0) (#159)
    by Teresa on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 06:16:30 AM EST
    The Nightline show had much more info. They  repeated the "murderer" part and that she grieves for TM like TM's mom does.

    The only new part I noted was "did you feel bullied" and she said no, she was the loudest.

    Robin Roberts said after it that she said that they (the jury) didn't get to read blogs and see things the public saw and that's what made it so hard. I don't know why they didn't show that part.

    RUFFIAN
    - no question on self-defense! I'm really disappointed in one of my favorite former sports broadcasters (RR).

    Thanks for keeping up! (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by ruffian on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 12:21:01 PM EST
    I'm really surprised they don't ask about self-defense. Seems to be the obvious question to me.

    Parent
    Especially since (5.00 / 3) (#188)
    by bmaz on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 12:28:56 PM EST
    ...it is hard to see an acquittal on the manslaughter without application of justification by self defense.

    Parent
    Details, details (none / 0) (#189)
    by jbindc on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 12:34:17 PM EST
    Reply to "Reasonable Doubt" (none / 0) (#171)
    by EHJ on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 09:50:09 AM EST
    It appears that a charge of manslaughter and a clear narrative around it--plus a real effort to counter the defense's narrative--could have swayed this jury. Except the first juror indicated that her mind had been made up from the start. So maybe a hung jury? Anyway, it is fascinating to get this look inside.

    Actally 3 voted NG on the (3.50 / 2) (#175)
    by Teresa on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 10:54:45 AM EST
    first vote. One for Murder Two (Maddy) and two for manslaughter.

    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.

    I give up on an informed media making comments. Like Anne said - banging your head against the wall and repeating it. I'm Exhibit 1.

    Parent

    Query: has anyone commenting gone to the scene? (none / 0) (#197)
    by oculus on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 02:46:31 PM EST


    You'll need a keycard to open the gate (none / 0) (#200)
    by AmericanPsycho on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 03:59:46 PM EST
    As a pedestrian? (none / 0) (#207)
    by oculus on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 05:53:59 PM EST
    "Model Juror", "Muddled" Juror (none / 0) (#229)
    by Politalkix on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 08:59:23 PM EST
    O'Mara is calling her a model juror, in this blog we have been repeatedly told that she is a muddled juror! Go figure!
    I am quite sure that at the end, the convenient scapegoat in this blog will once again be the media!