The Zimmerman Jury Is Better Able to Judge His Fate Than You

[davidpdx]

Last edited Sat Jul 13, 2013, 02:33 AM - Edit history (1)

I'm posting this to share as I think it's interesting. We all have opinions in the case, though as the author reminds us, we have not seen the specific evidence as the jury has.


A short while ago, the jury in the trial of George Zimmerman was handed the case. Zimmerman's fate is now entirely in the hands of the six women selected to consider the evidence. When the verdict is returned, whatever it happens to be, there's one thing that's important to remember: Those women know more than you.

Here's what I mean by that. No matter how much of the trial you watched on CNN, those jurors almost certainly saw more of the evidence than you did. They held documents in their hands. They saw what the witnesses—and Zimmerman—were doing while not on camera. They were excluded from hearing evidence that the judge deemed inappropriate or inadmissible. They have been instructed on the specific components of the law. And, most important, they are the only ones who know what arguments are being used to persuade each other to reach a unanimous decision.

Each of these things is an important part of the process of a criminal trial; I'll break out why below. But again: While we can watch the trial through the keyhole provided by CNN, we should never convince ourselves that we know better than the people in that room.

This is admittedly personal. For much of the year 2009, I sat as a juror on a well-publicized trial in New York City. Thousands of people each year sit on juries, of course, but few sit on ones that last a long time and are the subject of intense scrutiny. And in few—including the one in my experience—are the repercussions as high as in the case presented to these six women.

Continue reading: http://news.yahoo.com/zimmerman-jury-better-able-judge-fate-162313256.html

Ps-Before posting knee jerk responses like #14, please read what I've said in the thread. I didn't state my opinion in the OP simply because I wanted people to think about it.

[NoOneMan]

1. That jury also saw more bullshit lawyer swagger than I did

Juries are not infallible. They are the best we have in a fucked up system that they have a part in reinforcing. When assholes stalk and kill the only other witness, there are no good options

[davidpdx]

3. Humans are flawed by nature

therefore juries aren't going to always come up with the results that should be handed down. I agree with you on the lawyer bullshit which O'Mara and his buddy Kojack shoved out plenty. Hopefully the jury takes their time and looks at the evidence closely.

[pintobean]

2. K&R, but this won't be popular here

Many here think they know more and better than the jury. Some are even pre-labeling these women as bigots if they don't render the "proper" verdict.

[davidpdx]

5. Yes, you are right

I don't think it is as easy as some make it out to be. I've never served on a jury and never will (I now live outside the US). It is hard to imagine for those who haven't served on one what it must be like.

Unfortunately the word you mentioned (I can't even repeat it) is thrown around so loosely on DU with people making those types of accusations when they clearly aren't true. While I certainly am hoping for a guilty verdict (and have made that clear in many posts) if an acquittal occurs people need to shift their anger toward changing the laws instead of accusing the jurors of having a bias that may not be true.

[pintobean]

7. I've served on several juries

and only ran across one person who acted in bad faith. He refused to apply the law as instructed, based on sympathy. Something we all promised we wouldn't do during jury selection.

[davidpdx]

10. Are you willing to share what the charges were and the outcome?

It would be interesting to hear any thoughts you have on evaluating the evidence.

[pintobean]

12. That one was a civil case.

My first time on a jury. Mid 80s. We ruled 11-1 in favor of the defendant. A woman, whose husband had been electrocuted, was suing the power company. The man was clearly acting in a reckless and negligent manner. The lone holdout agreed with us on the facts and the law, but since the woman now had two young fatherless children, he wanted to award them some money anyway.

[11 Bravo]

30. True story: The last time I was called to jury duty it was also a civil suit.

However, the defendant turned out to be a former (20+ years ago) 2nd grade student of mine. The judge burst out laughing when I informed her of that fact and the student leaned forward, waved, and said, Hi, Mr. _____!" Needless to say, I was excused from the panel.

[pintobean]

33. About 6 years ago

I was on a jury panel for burglary charges against a young man. I knew the arresting officer and had a very high opinion of him. The prosecutor questioned me about the cop's character for about 20 minutes, in front of the whole jury panel. We broke for lunch right after that. When we returned, we were all released because a plea bargain had been reached. To me, that seemed extremely unfair to the accused. I should have been pulled aside and questioned where the rest of the panel couldn't hear.

[11 Bravo]

36. I agree. When the judge asked me if I could be an unbiased juror I stated ...

that I had been the defendant's teacher and would be pre-disposed to believe him because he had been a great kid. The rest of the jury panel heard every word. Sadly, I left as soon as I was dismissed and never did find out how the trial ended.

[avebury]

4. I wonder how the jurors feel about the defense attorneys?

West basically told them the only reason they are on the jury is because they were too stupid to know what was going on (knock knock joke). Both West and O'Mara were rude and condescending to women witnesses. West was rude beyond belief to the judge (sometimes even when the jurors were there). O'Mara flat out lied in his closing remarks (regarding the Stand Your Ground comment Zimmerman made to Hannity that O'Mara tried to say never happened. O'Mara told them to not use their common sense during deliberations. Both Defense attorneys have treated the jury like they are idiots.

I do not suffer fools gladly and can't stand anybody stupid enough to boldly lie about something that can be fact checked (this applies to both O'Mara and Zimmerman). If I were on the jury I would be asking the Judge for the video clip of the Hannity interview and use it to hammer home that this is an example for why you cannot take his story at fact value. Anybody that can lie that easily on something they will get caught on will lie about anything. I would also hammer home on the ideas that 1) he never called for someone to call for medical assistance for Trayvon, 2) made no effort to personally provide medical assistance for Trayvon, 3) he callously stood by and watched this young man die, and 4) he has never shown even one iota of compassion or remorse for Trayvon's death.

In manslaughter you look at what a reasonable person would do and that would be an easy issue to compare reasonable actions versus Zimmerman's actions that night. A reasonable person would have stayed in the truck and not chased after an unknown person in the dark, in the rain, not knowing if the person was armed or not, and knowing that the only way you can protect yourself is to shoot someone.

[davidpdx]

8. We may never know

I'm sure the jurors will be reluctant to speak out for fear they are harassed by one side or the other. We'll have to see if any of them decide to speak out after the case is over. It certainly would be very interesting to hear what was going through their minds during the knock knock joke (not that it was funny).

I don't know if the Hannity video was part of the case or not. If it isn't, I don't think they can't use it (If anyone knows, feel free to chime in).

The one saving grace maybe that the judge allowed the jury to consider a manslaughter charge. While it wouldn't be the best outcome, it would at least put him behind bars.

[reusrename]

45. With the gun enhancement, he'd do some real time behind bars.

I think it's up to 30 years when a firearm is used.

And the jury does have the Hannity tape. It was introduced by the prosecution.

[davidpdx]

54. I see

I didn't know that. He put his foot in his mouth on that one.

[Lex]

6. True about the OJ jury too, eh?

[davidpdx]

9. Certainly it is

We didn't see the evidence other than what was presented on TV. That makes it pretty hard to evaluate how strong it was. OJ also had a good legal time. Granted the verdict was unjust (in my opinion), but in the end he did get what he deserved.

[NoGOPZone]

11. You read my mind nt

[reusrename]

46. The OJ jury didn't know that there was blood everywhere. Ito wouldn't allow Luminol.

So when they got Dr. Readers to lie under oath about the preservative EDTA being found in the blood evidence on his socks, they thought a frame up was a possibility.

They never knew that there was blood all over his Bronco and his house which showed up on the Luminol tests.

[Zoeisright]

13. Oh bullshit.

I've been on jury duty too. When being questioned by attorneys, those jurors lied their asses off. I could not believe my ears when I heard what some of them said when they were being questioned. They lied about not being bigoted, they lied about not having pre-conceived notions about the person on trial, and they lied about their political preferences. They were completely different when not in the courtroom.

[davidpdx]

18. It is possible they lied about having preconceived notions or knowledge of the case?

Sure it is. Will we ever know? Probably not. I think assuming they are racist is nothing but ugly. If they come back with a guilty verdict will you retract that? My guess is probably not. Here's to hoping you have to eat your own words.

[WinkyDink]

34. Gee, they might have thought you lied.

Last edited Sat Jul 13, 2013, 02:57 PM - Edit history (1)

[Hugabear]

14. Zimmerman was armed. Trayvon was not.

Those facts are not in dispute.

Zimmerman is a murderer.

[davidpdx]

17. Are you replying to me or the article?

If you are to me, then you might want to take a look at the rest of the thread before you post a knee jerk response.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

41. 70% of sexual assaults involve an unarmed attacker

an armed victim is still entitled to resist with deadly force so your unqualified declaration is false on its face.

[SoutherDem]

15. The jury has one more thing

they haven't been watching the daily events replayed on CNN, FOX, MSNBC, ext.

Nor have they been reading liberal or conservative blogs which "knew" his guilt or non-guilt since before the trial began.

I for one am still unsure. I have not been watching the trial but go to several programs or internet sites to get the recap, this includes liberal and conservative sources and I am hearing both sides make good points.

I know as a liberal I am suppose to support his guilt but I don't know.

All I know at this point is I am glad I am NOT on the jury.

[davidpdx]

16. I agree with you on not wanting to be one the jury

I don't envy the six who have to make that decision. Either way they go, it will be an unpopular one.

[pintobean]

28. As liberals, I think we should support the right

to a fair trial and the judicial system. Demanding a certain verdict seems pretty right wing to me. Reasonable doubt is a strong standard that protects the innocent. A not guilty verdict could very well mean that the jury is pretty sure of guilt, but there was reasonable doubt.

Unfortunately, the jury won't be given reasonable doubt if they make the "wrong" decision. They will be called bigots.

I've watched the whole trial on line. That includes a lot of things the jury didn't see. I'll respect whatever verdict is reached.

[Lee-Lee]

44. I agree

I want him in jail. Badly.

But I want our system of justice based upon a presumption of innocence to remain strong, even if it means I don't get what I want in this case.

Conflicted, I am.

[Gravitycollapse]

19. This is why I rarely talk about the case. Let the jury decide.

[davidpdx]

21. Good point

[Gravitycollapse]

22. I made the mistake of arguing about it in the beginning.

And getting all of my information from Mother Jones. Which, to be fair, was at least moderately accurate. But it wasn't fair or proper in the sense that I would not want a suspect to be judged in such a fashion.

What this case apparently hasn't allowed on either side is any level of doubt. He's either definitely guilty or definitely innocent. Like we, as people who were never there and did not witness what happened, could know with 100% certainty. That's simply not possible. And it would be a disservice to our entire legal system to convict him on such shaky philosophy.

I really don't know George Zimmerman. One side says he's a goddamn deity-like patriot upholding his second amendment right one dead teenage thug at a time. The other says he's essentially Lucifer in human form who rapes cousins and murders for fun. I guess it's possible that one of those characterizations is at least partially correct. But the truth likely falls in the middle ground that no one wants to venture into.

Only God could know what truly happened. And, since God doesn't exist, we're all fucked.

[davidpdx]

23. I like that last line

You should put that in your sig line

[AllINeedIsCoffee]

24. I hope Zimmerman never walks the streets again.

But it is a duty as an American to respect whatever verdict a jury reaches.

[davidpdx]

25. I think we pretty much have to

Either way the verdict comes out, people should be putting energy into changing the crappy laws. I'm still crossing my fingers they'll convict him, but I've been pretty skeptical from the beginning that it will happen.

[YarnAddict]

26. In some ways they know less than we know

They have been prevented from knowing GZ's history of violence, and of his frequent reports to the police about young black males. There are other things that may be relevant that will not be considered.

[davidpdx]

27. That is true, they have been sequestered

The question really is how much they knew before. As people have pointed out, it is possible they knew more than they let on during voir dire. I doubt we'll ever know for sure.

[kentuck]

29. And they have no professional expertise...

that would make them more knowledgeable than anyone here? Why would you think that?

[davidpdx]

31. We were talking about the media, not law

[WinkyDink]

32. This is truly a case of "NS, S." And guess what? We ALSO KNOW we don't decide Z's fate! How about

that?!

[B Calm]

35. What was Bill Maher's closing argument

about the Zimmerman trial?

If the (fill in blank) doesn't fit, then you must acquit. It was hilarious and I'm pissed off at myself for not being able to remember the line.

[davidpdx]

37. I might have to try to find it on Youtube

[kentuck]

51. If the pants are full of shit...

then you must acquit.

[B Calm]

60. OMG, that was it! Thanks kentuck

[KharmaTrain]

38. The New National Pastime...Second Guessing The Judicial System...

...it started with Divorce court in the early days and now is its own broadcast genre...including several channels that constantly air trials. Our judicial system has become a source of entertainment...a game for people to speculate on and a "slew" of "experts" who have and do comment on anything and everything (other than the law). They're consumed when the defense attorney does put the defendant on the stand (where few cases do that) or what the prosecutor is wearing or the look in a juror's eye...they've got the "insight" that is sure to give those at home an "edge" in playing the guilty/not guilty game. And for all except those in that courtroom, this is a game...no skin off one's nose on the verdict; most are ready to move onto the next freak show; very little follow up after a trial is concluded.

For those in that jury room, the game is very, very real. They are now responsible for passing a verdict that is going to be controversial no matter how they choose. There's getting justice for a dead 17-year old boy whose only crime was wearing a hoodie in the wrong place at the wrong time. On the other hand is Zimmerman (personal note: I think the guy's a cop wannabe who got caught up in his own teevee show and if not criminally liable sure should be found guilty in other ways) who the jury will determine if they should send him off to jail. Don't weight this lightly...it's a big deal for those on the jury to pass this verdict; especially in a case where the verdict must be unanimous...it only takes one jury who has doubt and Zimmerman walks.

I've served on a federal jury, and as you properly state, no one knows what these jurors are looking at as evidence...the deliberation process is the most fascinating part of the trial and a lot will depend on the relationships built on that jury that will lead to a final verdict.

Cheers...

[davidpdx]

39. Just to clarify I didn't write the piece, I am sharing it from a source

You are right, we can play arm-chair quarterback all day but it doesn't mean squat was the responsibility is on those six people.

[KharmaTrain]

40. It's All Good...

...I'm very critical of the media circus that surrounds these trials than the quarterbacking people do. That's to be expected in such a high profile case...and as we've seen in the heated debates here your perspective can be altered by many emotional triggers. Those are exploited by the media not only to amp up interest through its endless speculation but to profit off of it. I found the MSNBC coverage to be way too much...especially as there were many other important news stories that were neglected. This wasn't by accident...the network has planned for months for this trial strictly to find ways to draw eyeballs and make money. A modern Roman circus...and totally removed from what's happening in that jury room.

Cheers...

[WinkyDink]

42. The 2000 SCOTUS thanks you.

[Iggo]

43. So what?

He did it.

[Rex]

47. Ya I agree so what? This is a discussion forum

and the statement by the OP is a 'duh' moment.

[davidpdx]

55. I didn't write it

I just posted it. Go back and reread it again.

[NaturalHigh]

48. Yes, very true, David.

I have my opinion, as I know many others do. I'm willing to accept the jury verdict. Like you said; they know more than I do. Hopefully, people who disagree with the verdict will try to accept it too, rather than resort to violence.

[reusrename]

49. Anyone with half a clue knows how this case should be decided.

Anyone who thinks otherwise is either in denial or completely clueless.

Zimmerman knows the kid wasn't trying to kill him.

His whole big lie about the Martin boy saying "tonight's the night your gonna die, muthereffer" is complete and total crap and anyone who buys into it is a complete and total racist.

It isn't complicated at all.

[Tikki]

50. Probably....but there is a truth in this..A man shot and killed an unarmed teenager.

In my town, a deaf man shot and killed a teenager who was standing at the bottom of the man's lawn.

He said he was scared because the teenagers were loitering in a threatening way. He asked them to leave; they did not leave; he got his gun; he shot in their general direction; he hit a teen with a bullet; the teen died.

He was convicted of manslaughter..did very little time.

The teenager did a long time, though...dead.

Tikki

[davidpdx]

58. It would be interesting to hear about that case

I'm not sure how you loiter in a threatening way. Even if he'd fired a warning shot in the air, it could have come down and hit someone (maybe not the kids near him, but someone else nearby) and he would have been responsible.

[Tikki]

59. Actually, I believe he would have been acquitted, but he admitted that if the people at the end of..

of his lawn had been adults he would have called the police first.
The case I stated above was many, many years ago.

Many humans will kill teenagers who don't behave in the way they want them to.


Tikki

[ecstatic]

52. Not in this case. I've seen the evidence

Were it not for Z's actions, none of this would have happened.

[bhikkhu]

56. That's pretty much what I think too

...and its why we have juries and judges and so forth, instead of Summary Decision by Internet.

Most of the time, because of the desire to not screw up an actual trial and predispose witnesses and so forth, all the evidence in a case is only made public during a trial. If you make up your own mind beforehand and invest heavily in the decision before knowing fully what happened, its just asking to be made a fool.

[davidpdx]

57. Could you imagine if we went to internet polling for juries?

What a mess that would be.

I agree, most people have their mind made up on cases like this when they first hear about it and it is very unlikely they will change their opinion.

I remember a couple of decades ago when the OJ decision came down. Like many, I thought he was guilty.