About the jurors on the GZ trial

[boston bean]

This is Florida again, and these jurors knew something about the case prior, how could they not?

They must be aware on some level they are sitting on a highly publicized case.

Think back to Casey Anthony, when that verdict came about, people hated those jurors and they received threats from the public.

Do you think this may work in favor of convicting George Zimmerman?

I think it might.... And I'm not really bothered it.

[Enrique]

1. the evidence they heard probably outweighed that factor

and public opinion cuts both ways, it's hard to say for sure how that would affect their decision.

[Jenoch]

2. I read that they have seen the

crowds gathered by the courts when they travel between their hotel and the courthouse.

I would be quite bothered if their decision is based on anything other than the evidence presented in the courtroom.

[Yo_Mama]

7. Me too

I would be quite bothered if their decision is based on anything other than the evidence presented in the courtroom.

Conviction or acquittal on the basis of public pressure makes an utter mockery of legal processes. Even if you like the result in one situation, you won't like it in the next.

If public pressure WERE to force a verdict here either way, it would be a return to dark days in our society.

[avebury]

3. It depends.

First of all I 100% believe that he is guilty of, at a minimum, manslaughter. I would have no problem going into a jury room and making a case for guilty. I actually think that, had the police done their job better during the investigation, there might have been a chance of getting a guilty verdict on an even high charge.

However, I am also a very analytical thinker. I look at something like this akin to putting together a puzzle. If, after putting all the pieces together and analyzing what I find, I really felt that Zimmerman was not guilty I would be just as capable of arguing against conviction. I know that I would be able to cut out the crap that doesn't relate to the guilt/innocent phase of a trial and set it aside and focus on what testimony, exhibits, etc. that does relate to the case.

Public perception would not be a factor in my deliberations.

[dkf]

4. How do you get around self defense to convict on manslaughter?

Jury instructions:

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

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

If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

In considering the issue of self-defense, you may take into account the relative physical abilities and capacities of George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin.

If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether George Zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find George Zimmerman not guilty.

http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_Releases/Zimmerman_Final_Jury_Instructions.pdf

[riqster]

5. Reasonable doubt is the key.

And the judge has to educate the jury in what the term means, and how to apply it.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

14. I think you're misapplying the term

[riqster]

28. No: as I said, the judge instructs the jury on how to apply it.

At least, when I was on jury duty, the judge did so. And that was helpful, because we laypeople don't always suss technical legal terms, or know how to apply them in context.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

29. when has conviction ever been based on doubting the accused?

The state has to prove it's case beyond a reasonable doubt.

[riqster]

32. Agreed. And the judge tells the jury how to apply the term.

Not sure what you're arguing about.

[avebury]

8. That part is easy.

I start by considering what a reasonable person would do.

1. You see someone that you just aren't sure about. Would you make any type of assumption of whether or not the person is carrying a gun? A reasonable person would recognize that, when you live in the #1 gun culture country of the world there is a good chance that any person could be carrying a gun.

2. Look at the conditions that night. Although it was early evening, it was dark, raining, and the visibility was extremely poor. Again, would a reasonable person following a person that could potentially be armed in those conditions?

3. Now, consider if a person is deemed inept and so incapable of defending himself that he is not even allowed to get in the boxing ring to spar in the gym. Do you actually think that this person, under the conditions outlined in 1 and 2, would follow someone with his gun in his holster? He stand a great chance of being shot or beaten up. His gun becomes the great equalizer.

4. Now consider in the case, Trayvon discovers that a person he does not know is following him. As Zimmerman closes in on Trayvon, the boy is able to tell that Zimmerman has a gun pointed at him, how is Trayvon going to react? A reasonable person is going to try to get away from the guy pointing the gun at him.

5. Remember GZ's 911 call - They always get away and a couple of other comments along that line. Is GZ using his gun to attempt to restrain TM until the police arrive? In his over zealousness, did the altercation occur because he decided that this "punk" was not going to get away? He claims that he did not know he shot TM but he holstered his weapon? He stopped yelling for help? He is putting TM's arms out like the police do? All GZ knew at that point was "that punk" didn't get away this time.

6. You have to actually believe that GZ is telling the truth to even think that he might have feared for his life. This is a man who was caught telling lies, the most obvious was the stand hour ground lie to Hannity.

I don't believe GZ for one minute. He is not credible and once you discount his story (or should I say stories) the defense's argument falls apart.

Edit to add: The fact that GZ did not make any effort to provide aid to TM is devastating. In addition, he did not ask any of the home owners who came out to call for an ambulance. Yes, it was stated that it was a fatal shot. But what if it was not? GZ stood there and would cold callousness, allowed that boy to die. His words - he "wouldn't do anything different" and "it was God's will."

GZ had not legal right to be a vigilante that night and that is exactly what he was.

[targetpractice]

21. A reasonable person would have identified themselves as Neighborhood Watch at some point.

I believe Zimmerman did not do this because he was carrying, and he didn't want get in trouble for that. He's a narcissist and was thinking about himself.

[avebury]

22. True. I forgot that point. Great catch targetpractice! nt

[The Magistrate]

12. Interesting, The Part You Leave Out, Ma'am....

"However, if from the evidence you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that
George Zimmerman was not justified in the use of deadly force, you should find him guilty if all
the elements of the charge have been proved."

[dkf]

19. Isn't that obvious? What else would the option be?

[The Magistrate]

30. The Point, Ma'am, Is That You Do Not Include It

You give a clipped version of the instruction, trying to shape the field for people who read your comment, and present the matter as a virtual instruction to acquit, when in fact it is nothing of the sort.

[qazplm]

18. easy

if I dont believe Zimmerman is telling the truth, it isn't hard to say it is not self-defense.

Now, if I am unsure if he is telling the truth or not, then self-defense becomes a much harder barrier to conviction to overcome.

I personally think he lied repeatedly, and thus I can't take anything he says as true, and thus the best case scenario I can give to him is that he is covering up his level of mutual involvement in the fight, which means to me it was a mutual affray that he started and lost.

Thus no self-defense.

However, the jurors may easily think quite differently in which case self-defense becomes a pretty insurmountable barrier.

[ChazII]

9. You would make an excellent

juror and hopefully the jurors will use their brains and not their hearts.

[KharmaTrain]

6. Juror Dynamics...

...can be a very tricky thing to predict. I had the fortune of serving on a federal jury...an excellent insight into the process that's going on that is far removed from what you are seeing on the teevee. I commend the judge for running a tight courtroom and for keeping the trial focused on the charges and not the sideshow issues (like how the OJ trial turned into). You have 9, now 6 strangers when this trial began...from different walks in life and with their own unique personality. Over the course of the trial these people bond due to their common experience but can't discuss the case until yesterday. Prior to that they were getting to know each other's family's or favorite TV shows or many other factors that create a jury chemistry that is now working on determining the verdict of this case. Anyone outside of that room has no clue as to what dynamics have formed inside...throw out past backgrounds and any other "profiling" being done...this group will come to a decision based on their own unique experience; hopefully looking at the letter of the law rather than emotions. This is how the justice system was designed and works in amazing and fascinating ways...

[pintobean]

10. Your last line

[bigdarryl]

11. I'm concerned about that gun totting juror #6 she could be a sellout

She might think Zimmerman had the right to self defense because he had a gun

[itsrobert]

16. She's taking a lot of notes and the media is predicting

since she is taking a lot of notes she must be very smart, etc.

In my experience, it may indicate a person like this is as dumb as a box of highlighters. I have seen many people sit in a class and take volumes of notes and fail the final. I also have seen people not take one note and ace the final. You know why? Because when they are looking down and writing their notes they are missing a lot of details.

[Quixote1818]

20. She could have formed an opinion and is writing down notes that support her opinion

but who knows.

[pipi_k]

13. And people wonder why

so many try to get out of jury duty.

No juror should be threatened.

And if they are threatened, I really can't understand how someone could not be bothered by a verdict coming about because of threats.

[Pelican]

15. Because they hate that dirty so and so...

If it was for someone they loved they would scream bloody murder.

[pipi_k]

17. Yep, it's always good

when it's someone else.

I often wonder how people here would think/act if someone they loved had done the same thing as Z did.

Would they be able to turn off their feelings? Would they be sitting here, absolutely convinced their kid/brother/father was a dirty no-good liar who deserved to be put in prison, possibly for life, based on a verdict given by a jury being threatened by the public?

[TorchTheWitch]

23. if they were afraid of being a juror they would have

done anything to not have been seated in the first place. All of these women wanted to be seated, they've been attentive and taking notes, and I don't think they give a rip what the public thinks about them. I definitely don't think any worry about the public would influence their votes.

I'm getting seriously annoyed at the low opinion a lot of people here have of the character of these jurors especially those that are convinced that just because they live in Florida they must all be a bunch of "gun humping" racists.

[boston bean]

24. I you think that I think the jurors are gun humping racists,

You couldn't be more wrong.

The point was knowing what happened with Casey Anthony, they may be a bit more inclined to give the family and victim justice.

I don't think jurors live in bubbles.

[TorchTheWitch]

33. the Casey Anthony case is no comparison

There just wasn't any evidence. They couldn't even figure out how she died at all. Since there were other characters involved that could have killed her or she wasn't killed at all with no real proof to the contrary in all honesty they really didn't have any choice but to let her go because that IS reasonable doubt.

This case has a boat load of evidence as well as a boat load of lies told by the defendant that make his story unbelievable. In this case there is no question how Martin died and no question who killed him. There was none of that in the Casey Anthony case.

I've seen many cases go belly up because of a stupid jury, but that's rare. Usually they get it right even when it's unfortunate that the outcome is not what one's gut belief is - even the gut belief of the jurors. If there is ANY reasonable doubt they have no choice but to find the defendant not guilty.

Further, it's another insult to the jury that they would use some other case having nothing to do with this one to have any baring on their vote in this case. That's unethical as hell, and yet another insult to the jury. Nobody lives in a bubble, but nobody has any reason to doubt that this jury will do what they were sworn to do as to their vote. It would NEVER even enter my mind to allow my vote in a case where I was a juror to be skewed because of some other case having not shit one to do with the one I was a juror on nor would it ever enter my head to allow my own personal biases to interfere with my vote. It's shameful to believe that anyone on this jury would be so low and grossly unethical with no evidence against them whatsoever. Why even make the assumption that any of these jurors know much about or care anything at all about the Casey Anthony case in the first place?

[boston bean]

34. All I am trying to say is

That I think they may realize how much publicity and important this case is, and may take into consideration the potential reaction of the public.

Not that it's right, but they are humans, and many different things shape our views.

I hope you do know that I want a conviction in this case.

[TorchTheWitch]

35. and I still say you're wrongly smearing their characters

Yes, they're human. But they have given no sign whatsoever that they won't do their sworn duty and curb any bias when it comes to how they arrive at their decision whatever that is. Thousands upon thousands of people serve as jurors every single day, and somehow they manage to do their sworn duty even though they're human. Smearing an entire jury panel with not one speck of evidence is just insulting to them regardless which way you want the verdict to go, and shame on you if you want them to behave unethically if it means a conviction. That's not justice. I want to see him convicted as well because I believe through the evidence presented that he's guilty as sin, but I'll be damned if I want that conviction to come at the price of injustice through even ONE unethical juror much less an entire panel of them.

Please stay far away from any jury panel.

[cthulu2016]

25. "And I'm not really bothered it" = "I am a dreadful person"

You might as well say you are no bothered by convicting someone simply because she is black. It's the same sort of deformation of justice and crime against the system.

A juror may not ethically/morally convict based in any way on extraneous factors.

It is shocking and odious and indefensible.

You either have principles or you don't... and not everyone does.

[NaturalHigh]

37. Great reply.

[chillfactor]

26. I saw on the news a few minutes ago....

that the jury is working through their lunch hour....seems to me they are very serious about the decison they are about to make..

[boston bean]

27. I would hope they are.

I expect they are.

[riqster]

31. On Friday, first thing they asked for was an inventory of evidence.

I would call that a good sign.

[NaturalHigh]

36. You're not worried that fear will influence a jury?

Yes, I've thought about this too. If they acquit Zimmerman (or even find him guilty of manslaughter), I think they should be worried about their safety. That's sad.