Juror B37 's Husband who is an Attorney Knows Mark O' Mara (Zimmerman's Defense Lawyer)

[HipChick]

Is this true? Just seeing it all over Twitter

[JustAnotherGen]

1. Are you serious HipChick?

[Humanist_Activist]

2. If true, she should have been disqualified from serving on the jury...

many years ago my grandmother was called to jury service in a felony trial and was dismissed because once knew the defense lawyer, hell, she babysat him as a kid.

[elleng]

7. Right, but depends on how well they knew eachother,

[Humanist_Activist]

10. From my understanding, my grandma didn't talk to him in years...

she babysat him when he was a child, and she a teenager. But any appearance of impropriety is generally frowned upon.

[elleng]

14. Right again. Was perfectly correct that your grandma did not sit on that jury.

Here, important to know (as I said elsewhere on this thread,) how well the attorneys know eachother.

[Spazito]

15. Equally important, did the juror disclose that on her juror qualification form...

as would be required, assuming her attorney husband does know O'Mara.

[elleng]

19. Very important.

Wonder what those forms look like there,

[Spazito]

22. It could be referred to as a jury information form in Florida...

I was hoping to find a sample of one on-line but no luck so far.

[HooptieWagon]

58. I was dimissed from a Fla jury pool

because I knew a few former and current LEOs in other counties (one whom I hadn't seen in 25 years), and I had witnessed a crime as a teen, and my mother had witnessed a crime of similar nature to the one being tried. None of which would have caused me to predispoae the guilt.

[Spazito]

61. That seems to be the norm pretty well everywhere...

the 'better safe than sorry' aspect.

[MH1]

17. When I've been through jury selection, everyone is dismissed who has any identifiable

acquaintance with any of the parties in the case. They go through scads of potential jurors just to seat a few people for a case.

Maybe it's different in Floriduh?

[JI7]

25. i think especially for a case like this it should matter

just like how they decide to sequester in some cases but not others.

[HipChick]

27. What if she didn't disclose it..

I had judge excuse himself once, because he knew my dad..

[GReedDiamond]

81. Agreed, amongst those in the last jury pool I was in...

...was an elderly retired school teacher who had been a grade school teacher of the defense counsel.

Not only was she dismissed because of her having known the def atty in the past - when she asked the judge if she could "give him (the defense atty) a hug?" - the judge denied her request and sent her on her way.

The Court is a Serious Place, or, it SHOULD be, which it was not, in the Trayvon Martin Murder Case.

Like much going on all around us, the "Court System" is broken, "Justice" comes to those who may most afford it, or have the ability to manipulate the "evidence" and testimony, i.e., what the judge rules as admissible or not.

There was a lot of inappropriate shit going on in the "trial" of George Zimmerman, The Murderer of Trayvon Martin, and whenever I refer to Der Zimmeister, I will always refer to him as a murderer.

[truebluegreen]

127. As I understand it, hubby is an attorney

and defense attorney is head of county bar. It would be astonishing if they didn't know each other.

[leftstreet]

3. We'll have to wait til the book comes out!

[NoOneMan]

4. This seems way too far-fetched (like Zimmerman's story)

I doubt it

[PotatoChip]

43. What is so far fetched about it?

It is my understanding that this juror's husband is an attorney. Therefore, they may have traveled in the same social circles. Or they may just have known each other in some other way.

The point is, that I don't see it being a far fetched thing at all. Anything is possible.

So if indeed true, I guess the question would than become how well did they know each other?

[Ruby the Liberal]

84. O'Mara is the head of the bar in that 'burg

Her husband is a practicing member of that bar.

Its safe to assume they've met. /RonWhite voice

[truebluegreen]

131. See post #127 above

eta: or #84

[Sancho]

5. B37 already has a book contract too...

[fierce_liberal]

83. Good old social media got that book deal squashed :)

http://theurbandaily.com/2515532/juror-b37-book-deal-dropped-twitter/

[elleng]

6. Dunno,

but how well 'know' important. 'Small' community of attorneys might easily mean everyone 'knows' everyone, but degree of association VERY important.

[HipChick]

12. Yes..that what I am thinking...small town mentality

everyone knows each other..

[HiPointDem]

34. i don't think degree is that important. there must be other potential jurors who aren't married

to attorneys, or paralegals, or judges, or cops.

[LaydeeBug]

8. I don't think there is anything you can do about this now. Double Jeopardy. nt

[leftynyc]

65. Actually, this is one of the

very few instances that can get a second trial - something having to do with getting an unfair trial due to a jury problem.

[jessie04]

98. 100% correct.

If she didn't disclose that she may have known the defense attorney, she might be in big trouble.

And so is Zimmerman.

[ceonupe]

107. Wrong

Zimmerman unless proven he directly just tempered would face zero charges. And no his not guilty verdict would not be over turned. No no there would not be a new trial

[graywarrior]

9. What. The. Fuck.

[kestrel91316]

11. Conflict of interest should have got her tossed even before voir dire.

[Mr. David]

13. that is a serious charge if true

Failure to disclose that fact should render the trial a mistrial.

[LisaL]

16. It's not possible to have a mistrial after a vertdict.

[Spazito]

63. Actually, it is possible....

Here is a case where it did happen, where the State sought a mistrial after the verdict and won:

The defendant had been charged with both murder and conspiracy to murder. The jury deadlocked on the murder charge but he was acquitted on the conspiracy to murder charge.

The State sought a mistrial on the conspiracy to murder verdict arguing that there was some misunderstanding among jurors as they voted for the not guilty verdict, and asked the Judge to declare a mistrial on that charge.

The judge subsequently ruled in favor of a mistrial which allowed the State to go forward on both the conspiracy to commit murder and the murder charge in the retrial.

It is a fascinating case on the question of a mistrial after a verdict has been handed down especially given Juror B37's having said the jury didn't understand the manslaughter section of the jury instructions so decided not guilty was their only other choice.

Here is a link to the STATE TAYLOR v. JANES (West Virginia) Supreme Court of Appeals court decision:

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/wv-supreme-court-of-appeals/1520981.html

Edited to clarify jury deadlock part

[newcriminal]

96. That is not what that case said.

This matter is before the Court pursuant to a Petition for Writ of Prohibition filed by Lincoln Stuart Taylor, hereafter “Mr. Taylor.” The record before us shows that Mr. Taylor was indicted for first degree murder and conspiracy to commit first degree murder. Those charges were tried before a jury in the Circuit Court of Marion County. At the conclusion of the trial, Mr. Taylor's jury acquitted him of conspiracy to commit first degree murder, but deadlocked on the first degree murder charge. A mistrial on the first degree murder count was declared and the matter set for retrial.

Prior to retrial, Mr. Taylor moved in limine to preclude the State from introducing evidence that he shot and killed the decedent or, in the alternative, to preclude the State from introducing evidence that he acted as a member of a group to kill the decedent. Mr. Taylor based his motion on the ground that those issues had been decided in his favor and the State's presenting those issues in the murder retrial would violate double jeopardy. The circuit court denied the motion, holding that double jeopardy did not require preclusion of the issues sought to be excluded by Mr. Taylor. Mr. Taylor then filed the Petition for Writ of Prohibition presently before us. For the reasons set forth herein, we find that double jeopardy does not require exclusion of the issues raised by Mr. Taylor and the petition for a Writ of Prohibition is therefore denied.

He was not retried on the conspiracy charge. This case was regarding whether evidence could be used or not.

Did you actually read it?

[Spazito]

97. The decision went against the double jeopardy claim...

and ruled in favor of the State in that they could bring in conspiracy in their re-trial making the claim by the defendant that raising the conspiracy was double jeopardy.

"Following full briefing and argument, the trial court denied Mr. Taylor's motion. The trial court agreed with Mr. Taylor that his “acquittal of conspiracy leads to issue preclusion as a component of double jeopardy,” but that issue preclusion need not result in a complete bar to further prosecution on any theory. In concluding that Mr. Taylor's motion should be denied, the trial court held that it was

․ unable to determine which issue [whether Mr. Taylor was part of a conspiracy or whether Mr. Taylor had shot and killed the decedent as alleged] was necessarily decided in Mr. Taylor's favor by the jury in its verdict of acquittal of the conspiracy charge against him and, accordingly, which issue should be precluded in Mr. Taylor's impending trial as a component of double jeopardy.

Without knowing which issue was necessarily decided by the jury, the trial court denied the motion and did not exclude any issue from being argued by the State in Mr. Taylor's retrial."

This decision allowed for the State to use conspiracy as part of their argument on the murder charge even though the defendant claimed he had been acquitted on that charge and to reintroduce it was double jeopardy.

[newcriminal]

100. Meaning they could use the evidence.

You stated:

The judge subsequently ruled in favor of a mistrial which allowed the State to go forward on both the conspiracy to commit murder and the murder charge in the retrial.

That is not correct.

The judge ruled the mistrial only on the charge that the jury was hung on.

[Spazito]

104. In allowing conspiracy into the retrial, it allowed the jury to consider conspiracy in their...

deliberations of the murder charge, in effect combining the conspiracy and the murder into one charge of murder. It negated the conspiracy acquittal of the conspiracy charge, in actuality, by allowing evidence of conspiracy to be presented in the murder charge.

Edited to add: It is both a fascinating and unique ruling. The ruling dealt with jury confusion which, if one were to believe Juror B37, also occurred, during deliberations, on the question of manslaughter and the jury instructions.

Do I think the confusion that occurred with the Zimmerman jury would be grounds for a retrial, no, but jury confusion was taken into consideration in the case we are discussing.

[rug]

108. That is incorrect.

These are the issues that were before the Court:

Traditional Principles of Double Jeopardy: Generally stated, the traditional principles of double jeopardy bar repeated “prosecution for the same identical act and crime.” 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 330 (1769). See also Yeager, 129 S.Ct. at 2371 (Scalia, J., dissenting). Therefore, the state may notre-prosecutee a defendant on a charge after being found not guilty on that charge. On the other hand, it is uniformly held that if a jury is unable to reach a decision on all charges against a defendant, resulting in a mistrial, that double jeopardy does not-absent other circumstances-prevent the state fromre-prosecutingg the defendant on the deadlocked charges. Where a jury has deadlocked on a charge in an indictment, and a mistrial declared, jeopardy has not terminated and the state can properly retry the defendant on the deadlocked charge absent other circumstances. Yeager, 129 S.Ct. at 2366.

Collateral Estoppel. Issues relevant to collateral estoppel in criminal cases generally arise where a jury has acquitted a defendant on some charges, but has deadlocked on other charges, and where the acquitted charges and the deadlocked charges arise from the same or similar conduct and depend on the same or similar proof. The Yeager Court held that collateral estoppel precludes “relitigating any issue that was necessarily decided by a jury's acquittal in a prior trial.” Yeager, 129 S.Ct. at 2366. “ ‘When an issue of ultimate fact has once been determined by a valid and final judgment’ of acquittal, it ‘cannot bere-litigatedd’ in a second trial for a separate offense.” Yeager, Id., at 2367, citing Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436, 443, 90 S.Ct. 1189, 25 L.Ed.2d 469 (1970).

This decision affirmed the defendant could not be tried again for the charge of conspiracy on which he was acquitted, Double Jeopardy once again governed.

On the issue of collateral estoppel, or the preclusion of an issue already determined, the court ruled that the jury could have acquitted the defendant of conspiracy on other grounds than those the prosecution intended to introduce at his retrial on the murder charge. Therefore, the court concluded, the prosecution was not estopped from bringing in that evidence used in the conspiracy prosecution in the murder prosecution.

Simply, the state could not retry him on that charge of which he was acquitted. Black letter law.

Nor could the state be barred from bringing in evidence used in the conspiracy to prove his guilt of murder, a charge on which the jury hung. Again, a retrial after a hung jury does not violate due process or double jeopardy.

The only unusual aspect of this case is the arcane issue of whether the state could use the evidence used in the acquitted charge in the retrial on the murder charge.

Since the jury could of acquitted on any number of reasons, the holding was that collateral estoppel did not apply.

[Spazito]

110. " the holding was that collateral estoppel did not apply."

"The doctrine of collateral estoppel, a common law legacy codified by Ashe v. Swenson 397 U.S. 436 (1970), protects criminal defendants from being tried for the same issue in more than one criminal trial. In Ashe v. Swenson, the Court ruled that the aegis of the Fifth Amendment's protections against double jeopardy are enforceable in state as well as federal court through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as established by Benton v. Maryland 395 U.S. 784. This decision relies on the application of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution."

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/collateral_estoppel

By ruling collateral estoppel didn't apply, it allowed the State to bring in evidence of conspiracy as part of the re-trial of the murder charge, in effect, negating the acquittal and, instead tying conspiracy as part of the murder.

[rug]

111. No it didn't. The acquittal on the conspiracy stood.

The state was simply allowed to use that same evidence for a different purpose, to wit, to attempt a conviction on a separate charge of murder.

At no point was the negation of the conspiracy acquittal a possibility.

[Spazito]

112. It stood but lost it's relevance due to jury confusion...

the ruling allowed the State to bring the evidence of conspiracy into the retrial of the murder trial, rolling the two charges into one which, in turn, allowed the jury to consider conspiracy as part of the murder in their deliberations.

[rug]

114. None of that is in the appellate decision.

No doubt the trial court had to carefully craft jury instructions so the jury would not conflate the two. But that's common in every criminal trial. When a prosecutor tries to bring in evidence of prior immoral acts the trial judge determines on a case-by-case basis whether the probative value of such evidence outweighs the prejudice to the defendant.

Do you know what happened to Taylor when the case was remanded to the trial court?

[Spazito]

115. It is the effect of the appellate decision...

due to the decision as opposed to any language in the decision that states the conspiracy acquittal was overturned.

As to the Taylor case, I believe he plead out and it didn't go to trial again but I am saying so from memory, something I read while doing a search on the case but will readily stand to be corrected if that is not the case.

Edited to add:

He entered an Alford Plea after he lost the appeal we have been discussing:

Taylor entered an Alford Plea to second degree murder in 2010. He would have faced 15 years to life if he was convicted of first degree murder.

http://www.wdtv.com/wdtv.cfm?func=view&section=5-News&item=Man-Charged-in-2007-Murder-Case-Released-From-Custody5720

[rug]

118. I see he was released last September after serving 5 years of a 10 year sentence.

September 27, 2012

Lincoln Taylor released from custody

Charged in 2007 Memorial Day murder

By Debra Minor Wilson
Times West Virginian
Thu Sep 27, 2012, 05:00 AM EDT

FAIRMONT — Lincoln Stuart Taylor, the man charged in a Memorial Day 2007 murder, has been released from the St. Marys Correctional Center after having served five years of a 10-year sentence.

According to Jim Rubenstein, commissioner of the Division of Corrections, Taylor discharged his sentence on July 3.

The Randolph County man, now 28, was charged with the shooting death of Derrick Deandre “Lil ‘D’” Osborne on May 28, 2007, on Highland Drive in Bellview.

Osborne, who apparently was shot while he was running away from his assailant, died at the scene before police and an ambulance crew arrived.

- See more at: http://timeswv.com/local/x766450546/Lincoln-Taylor-released-from-custody#sthash.DpjTjAVk.dpuf

I'd have to register to get the full story.

It does sound like a reasonable plea. He'd get out in a couple of years on a plea without risking a conviction by a jury that conflates the evidence. The DA doesn't have to risk an appeal on jury instructions or other error. And with an Alford plea he doesn't have to admit to the facts, just acknowledge the evidence against him.

So, 5 to 10 vs 15 to life. Even though his writ was denied, the appeal served its purpose.

[Spazito]

119. Yes, it was losing the appeal which allowed the conspiracy evidence in...

that made his Alford Plea a wise decision on the part of his defense team for sure.

[rug]

120. It also forced the prosecution to come down from 15 to life.

[Spazito]

121. I don't know if I would use the word "forced" seeing as the State won the appeal...

I am sure the cost of a retrial was a consideration for the State once the defense indicated they were willing to plead, acknowledging the evidence was strong enough to make conviction a strong probability.

[rug]

123. The decision gave the prosecution a path but it was a very narrow one.

I can see a trial where the record is peppered with appealable issues, most of them on the use of the conspiracy evidence in the prosecution's case-in-chief. It's a path with many pitfalls and a bear of an appeal.

Don't kid yourself and think the decision did not influence the prosecution's decision to make that offer. People get 5 to 10 routinely for burglary, not murder.

[Spazito]

132. You and I are not going to agree on the reason why...

the State accepted the defense's offer to plead to 2nd degree murder instead of retrying him on the 1st degree charge.

Given that the decision re the appeal was heard by the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia which then handed down their decision to allow the inclusion of conspiracy evidence, any appeal on that issue, had the trial gone forward and the defendant convicted, would have to be appealed to the USSC, I believe.

[rug]

133. No, because how the prosecution used that evidence at trial would have to be measured against the

parameters of this decision first.

[Spazito]

138. A different question than appealing the inclusion of the conspiracy evidence in the trial....

this is entering the realm of 'what if' speculation, on both our parts, and somewhat far afield from where we began.

I have enjoyed the back and forth on this issue and appreciated your civility while we differed in our perspectives.

[rug]

139. Likewise.

[HipChick]

18. I was very much doubting claims of Collusion today

Now I am not so sure..

[hedgehog]

59. If she failed to disclose this, she should be tried for perjury!

[onenote]

87. Do you know everyone that your spouse knows professionally

or even socially? I don't. I know the names of only a handful and have met even fewer. If it turns out that there was a relationship between the juror and O'Mara or that the relationship between O'Mara and the husband was such that the wife could be expected to know of it, it would be one thing. But imputing the mere fact that someone's spouse "knows" someone to another spouse is a paternalistic attitude that should have died out by now.

[avebury]

20. If that is true, then there is no way that she should have

been allowed on this jury. Talk about conflict of interest


A good friend of mine had a mother who knew a lot of lawyers. Every time she got called for jury duty she always got sent home.

[HolyMoley]

21. Twitter!?

God, I've been online something close to 18 years, and I'm undecided which is more repulsive; Twitter or FaceBook.

Besides, even if remotely accurate, one lawyer knowing another lawyer isn't exactly ground breaking news
or cause for concern.

It's a small, strange world we live in.

[HipChick]

23. I think you are just old...all media outlets are on Twitter

Either trolling or a print Newsreader..

[COLGATE4]

24. You've got to be kidding. In the legal community

most lawyers 'know' each other. So what?

[BainsBane]

29. They have to disclose information like that to the court

She probably should not have been on that jury.

[COLGATE4]

46. That information would have come out on

her Juror's questionaire. The fact that nobody raised an objection shows that nobody was concerned.

[BainsBane]

49. Do you have proof it did?

It would have if they weren't withholding information. How do you know they disclosed the relationship?

[COLGATE4]

56. Becaused, as a trail lawyer I've worked with

jury questonnaires for over 25 years now. That type of relationship is one of the first things probed when looking at potential jurors. And, BTW there's no relationship to disclose. Her husband may (or may not) know one of thelawyers involved in the case. No indication that she did.

[alittlelark]

77. As a 'trail lawyer' you must have someone else type your briefs....

[COLGATE4]

78. Yep. That why we have secretaries. Me, I

just hunt & peck. Nlow, would you care to respond to the points I made?

[HiPointDem]

35. shouldn't be on the jury, regardless.

[COLGATE4]

45. I forgot. It's because of

the "I say so" rule.

[BainsBane]

51. It's called conflict of interest

[COLGATE4]

54. There is no conflict of interest. She doesn't

know the lawyers - her husband does. You're just making stuff up.

[HiPointDem]

70. no, it's because there are nearly 500,000 people in seminole county & that the wife of an

attorney who knows o'mara professionally got chosen for such a controversial case is quite, uh, striking.

[COLGATE4]

72. Why? Most attorneys in a given location know each other

professionally. There is no indication that the juror knew O'Mara. Her husband's knowledge of O'Mara (if in fact there is any) can't be imputed to her. Nice try, though.

[HiPointDem]

73. funny that with a potential jury pool of over 200,000 people they couldn't get anyone but the

wife of an attorney to fill 1 of 6 slots.

nice try though.

[COLGATE4]

74. For the conspiracy minded, no set of facts will

overcome a fundamentally irrational belief. Personally, I think it was a plot by the Illuminati (or maybe the Freemasons) to acquit Z so he could go to work for the UN when the black helicopters land).

[HiPointDem]

75. yes, there's so much similarity between the spouse of an attorney who knows the defending

attorney being selected out of a pool of >200K and 'the illuminati'.

conspiracy is a fact of politics. if you haven't noticed it, it's either because you're young, you're stupid, or you're willfully blind.

[COLGATE4]

76. Quit while you're ahead. You're just

proving my point about irrationality. And, BTW, do tell me about all your experience with the legal/trial system that permits you to focus laser-like on the corruption in this case. I'm sure it's fascinating.

[left on green only]

26. Wait!

If Slimeball O'Mara doesn't live in Sanford (and I think that's true), then isn't it highly unlikely that he would know any attorneys whose residence and practice is located in little ol' Sanford; unless of course the juror's husband/attorney is a Melvin Belli/Johnny Cochran type (high profile). If that were the case, and if he were still alive, then he might indeed know O'Mara. But based upon publicity so far released, my money says that is not the case. FacePalm/Twitter be damned.

[Cha]

28. maybe nothing can be done about that now as far as

convicting zimmerman but if true it's more proof of a tainted verdict.

thanks HipChick

[Blue_In_AK]

30. This isn't really an issue in a smaller town

where everybody knows everybody. I've transcribed trials from rural Alaska where all the jurors knew the defendant, the victim, the witnesses, and both lawyers, as well as the judge. Sometimes you can't escape it. The judge always just asks if the juror can be "fair."

[HipChick]

32. Interesting...

any juicy about Palin?

[HiPointDem]

36. sanford population 53K. everybody doesn't know everybody. i live in a smaller town, &

everybody doesn't know everybody even here.

there are other potential jurors who aren't married to attorneys.

[Blue_In_AK]

37. Point taken.

53,000 isn't that small, but even here in Anchorage (pop. 300,000) we sometimes had trouble finding jurors who didn't know at least one person involved in a trial, especially the more high profile cases.

But this Juror B37 seems to have a lot more strikes against her than just this acquaintance of her husband and the defense lawyer. Too bad these issues weren't discovered earlier so a mistrial could have been discussed.

[HiPointDem]

38. if her husband is a lawyer, regardless of how well he knows o'mara, she should have been

disqualified.

everybody doesn't know everybody in a town that size, but it's a good bet that everybody in the legal community has some degree of acquaintance with each other, and the community's 'movers & shakers' (i.e. the local ruling class) definitely know each other.

[onenote]

86. I didn't know we were living in the 1950s

where a wife was merely an appendage of her husband, living vicariously through him and having no independent existence. I'm an attorney. I know lots of attorneys professionally. My wife has never met 99 percent of them and has probably heard me mention the names of only a handful of them. She has her own life and I don't know the names of, and have never met, most of the folks that she encounters in her daily life.

If there is evidence that a juror has a personal relationship with an attorney in a case, that is one thing. But the claim that her husband "knows" an attorney in the case -- not a big deal unless there is a lot more to it than I've seen described.

[whopis01]

48. The jury wasn't selected from Sanford - it was from all of Seminole County - roughly 430k. n/t

[HiPointDem]

68. even more reason to wonder why a woman whose husband knew o'mara professionally got onto

that jury.

[markiv]

129. i live in a town that size

and it's my guess that nearly all of the lawyers in town have at least met each other

you would have to exclude family of all lawyers, all the time

[gollygee]

41. I live in a smaller town

and have been disqualified for having worked with someone's mother 10 years earlier.

[Blue_In_AK]

66. I agree with you

that disqualifications should occur whenever it's feasible; I'm just saying that in some situations (in Bush Alaska, for instance), it's next to impossible to find a jury that doesn't have connections to the players. In the case of Zimmerman and Sanford, juror B37 could have been disqualified when it became known that her husband was friends with the defense attorney. If those sorts of questions weren't asked during voir dire, someone dropped the ball.

I got disqualified from a jury because I worked on the defendant's appeal from his original trial conviction and knew everything about the guy and his case. I could have kept my mouth shut and thrown the jury, but I have a conscience.

[apples and oranges]

31. That's how Taffe knew the vote break down

He let it slip on HLN and Nancy called him out on it. Do we need to start looking at their bank accounts? Mysterious deposits? How do you go from 2 for manslaughter, 1 for 2nd degree, to a unanimous non guilty verdict?

[HipChick]

33. Good point..

[HiPointDem]

39. +1

[LukeFL]

40. How do you know this?

Who said this is what happened?

[uponit7771]

44. One of Z's neighbors let it slip on HLN before the verdict

[ksoze]

42. You obvioulsy do not know how jury's work

Most don't go into deliberation agreeing and ready to vote and bolt. That's why its not a internet questionnaire after the trial. That's not the way it works nor is supposed to work.

[Spazito]

52. He also stated on Fox he had an 'inside source' who told him about the 5 - 1 deadlock...

according to this thread posted on DU Saturday night before the verdict.

Here's the link to the thread:

http://election.democraticunderground.com/10023246971

I said he was full of shit at the time, that he didn't know anything. I am now hoping I was wrong and that, for the first time, that loud mouthed blowhard actually did have an 'inside source'. If so, big, big trouble for him and his 'inside source'.

[Horse with no Name]

55. In 11 hours....n/t

[Punkingal]

57. Yep, I saw that, and Nancy went nuts on him.

I hope he did know something and they all get in trouble.

[mzmolly]

103. .

[oldhippie]

47. It depends on what your definition of "know" is ......

I can say I "know" O'Mara. I saw him on TV. IIRC, he spent some time as a legal commentator on a local TV station, so a lot of people "know" him. As an attorney, he probably attends conferences and meetings with all the other lawyers in the whole area. They "know" him. That doesn't mean they ever talked to him or had a close relationship.

Probably every lawyer in the area "knows" every judge in the area. Should they not be allowed to practice in their own area?

I think there has to be a definition of "know" before this discussion can get very far.

edited for lousy typing.

[Anansi1171]

53. Its not whether he should or shouldn't be allowed to practice...

...its whether should have been enpaneled on this jury, if true.

[oldhippie]

71. The point was whether or not ......

... the juror's attorney husband "knowing" O'Mara should disqualify her from the jury.

Does a lawyer that "knows" a judge be prohibited from representing a client before him/her?

Again, what does "know" mean?

[NCTraveler]

50. Did he know any of the prosecutors? nt.

[Spazito]

60. If he knew the lawyers on either side of this case...

his wife, the juror, is supposed to disclose that. If it turns out he did, indeed, know O'Mara, did his wife disclose that on the jury information form is the essential question in my mind.

[Lucinda]

62. Edited with new info...

He hasn't denied it yet as far as I know. His FaceBook page is full of questions.
His wife is similar in shape to the lady in silhouette on AC's show, but I haven't seen anything corroborating yet.

EDITING to say that he finally commented on twitter saying it wasn't his wife.

[ksoze]

64. "His wife is similar in shape to the lady in silhouette"

Have we gone a bit too far in chasing down anything to help explain the trial outcome. Jeez.

[Lucinda]

67. Nope. Was just an observation. He has already said it wasn't his wife anyway. n/t

[HiPointDem]

69. he who?

[HiPointDem]

79. i want to keep this bumped.

[HiPointDem]

80. .

[Mr.Bill]

82. I was once dismissed from jury duty

on a case that had a medical aspect to it simply because I am married to an RN.

In my county they dismiss you from jury duty even if you have any personal relationship with a cop.

[Dalai_1]

85. More tweets about B-37's Husband

and Mark Omara this morning and last night....

This is one I read last night

Tom L. (@27Seascapes)
7/17/13 10:08 PM
@JonathanJewel @lmhoeper I'm surprised her name hasn't been leaked yet - especially if her husband attend same law school as O'Mara...

[malaise]

88. There was a post here earlier in the week suggesting that he recommended O'Mara

after he was approached.
Now that would be mind-blowing because it would be way worse than merely knowing him.

[Dalai_1]

89. K&R n/t

[aikoaiko]

90. Mere knowing is generally not a COI

And the jury selection questions may or may not have addressed that issue well.

[MinM]

91. Was there a mole on the Zimmerman jury?

...Adding to the concern over potential juror misconduct, Zimmerman neighbor and friend Frank Taaffe had appeared on both the FOX News Channel and HLN on Saturday a few hours before the verdict was read, and had claimed to possess inside knowledge that the jury was at that moment polling 5 to 1 in favor of acquitting the defendant, with one juror holding out for manslaughter. At 2:48 PM on HLN, Taaffe at first merely claimed he was “very comfortable” in this assessment and “firmly believe[d]” it was the case; prodded by host Nancy Grace to explain how he had arrived at his belief, he went even further, stating, “I know it’s 5 to 1.” Grace appeared to dismiss that allegation as ludicrous speculation, opining that Taaffe must have “a Ouija board down [his] pants.” ...

Perhaps Taaffe was just blowing hot air. Yet three days later, when CNN’s Cooper aired the second part of his interview with B37, she confirmed that the penultimate jury poll had indeed been 5 to 1, with one juror holding out for manslaughter. In other words, Taaffe’s “insight” into their deliberations had been entirely correct.

Could it have been mere coincidence that Taaffe happened to put the vote at 5 to 1 at the exact moment this was accurate? It’s possible. It’s also possible that he did indeed have inside access to the deliberations. Was it via juror B37 and/or her husband, who, as we’ve established, were likely in contact with that “national morning-TV producer” by the time Taaffe made his brazen claim? Does the producer in question work for FOX or HLN? Or is s/he at CNN, where the juror chose to tell her story mere hours after her literary deal fell through?

And what if Taaffe’s source wasn’t connected to B37 at all? That would mean that two out of six jurors, or a full third of the jury, had violated the rules of sequestration. While the nation focuses on B37’s troubling comments to Cooper, and the pro-defense bias they arguably revealed, we should be looking deeper into the possibility that the verdict was compromised by simple and repeated misconduct –all on the part of jurors who, either on their own or through proxies, couldn’t wait to make contact with the media they purportedly deplore.

http://blogs.orlandoweekly.com/index.php/2013/07/look-whos-talking-was-there-a-mole-on-the-zimmerman-jury/

[Joo]

92. Video clips of Taaffe & B37 regarding 5-1 holdout

[Kali]

93. Hi there

care to explain the meaning of your username?

[Joo]

94. ?

An abbreviation for Joojoo Red - what's the meaning of yours?

[Kali]

95. my name in real life

what does Joojoo Red mean?

[Joo]

99. Ditto

It's my name in real life - why are you so interested?

[mzmolly]

105. It could be considered

a slur. "Jew" and "Joo" sound alike.

Welcome to DU.

[Agschmid]

106. Your username could be construed as racist by some...

Here is a link which references it: http://www.dictionaryupdate.com/Joo

If that is not what you meant which it seems then its no big deal, but since your a new member you could easily recreate an account with a different username?

[Joo]

116. Do you mean or are you mean...

What!? That's a leap - So e.g. if I was to go by "Bear" would you assume I was naked? Here's a reference for you (not "ewe&quot http://onlineslangdictionary.com/meaning-definition-of/joo

[Agschmid]

117. Well I'm gay...

So if you went by "bear" you'd be naked and hairy... and you should have been in Ptown last week? I did not see you.

Thanks for the link... but you have to remember some people see things others do not so its important to consider others. Also I was just explaining why the previous poster may have asked, seemed like you wanted to know.

Enjoy DU.

[Joo]

122. Tx but...

Thank you Agschmid - I understand, I've always loved my name and have never had this response before. (I belong to and have posted on many other blogs/forums) Anyone who has to reach that far or dig that deep, has left me questioning whether I want to be a part of this blog at all.
Best - JooJoo (BTW my name means "Little Bird&quot

[Agschmid]

124. It's a fine place we just can get a bit "cray" sometimes...

I'd encourage you to stick with it, I always enjoy hearing from other posters but completely understand if you feel it is not for you.

[Joo]

125. Question

Agschmid - are you an official moderator on here?

[Agschmid]

126. Nope.

The only "mods" here are the randomly selected juries and the site admins... I'd read this it will give you a better idea: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus

This page lists the admins (the only "mods&quot : http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=contact

[Kali]

130. I don't mean to make you feel uncomfortable

but as mentioned some could take Joo to be derogatory. I asked for clarification because I am just obnoxious, that way. When I am curious I just ask.

and I guess I am still a little confused, Joo is your real name but it is an abbreviation for Joojoo Red? or Joojoo Red is your real name? Or Joo Joo means little bird or Joo means "you?" That is quite a number of explanations.

Sorry to be so pushy, and I do really hope you find a way to enjoy DU, it is a great place for discussion, fun, and especially information.

[Joo]

134. WTH?

Okay, you may be obnoxious "your words" - I find you offensive and see no reason to give you any further information on my name - there are many "chat" pages I can go to if I want to shoot the breeze, I thought this to be a forum for discussion on different levels of current events. Please refrain from contacting me about my personal information. I am interested in the topics here and commenting on them if I so choose - not being part of an IM or personal blog.

[Kali]

137. OK. no problem.

understand that DU is protective of all peoples (well, maybe not republicans or libertarians) and the questions were only out of concern for possible bigotry. That is not tolerated here. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=termsofservice

Enjoy your stay.

[Joo]

144. Then...

Take it up with a moderator or the site - your wild speculation is creating bigotry - this will be my last post on the subject.

[mtnester]

149. Welcome to DU, and you did a good job of standing your ground there

not all of us are quite like the welcoming committee that "greeted" you previously.

As you have already discovered, there are ins and outs here. Hope you are able to enjoy DU for what it is meant to be.

[calimary]

148. Welcome to DU, Joo!

Hey, you rhyme!

Glad you're here! MANY strong feelings stirred up around this case, and the whole infuriating tragedy of it. Many of us wear our hearts on our keyboards regarding issues like this one. It's been awfully hard for me to wrap my mind around - what's happened and the injustice of it. You can be wincing about this all day whether it's just the isolated incident of Trayvon Martin's murder, OR if you extrapolate out the larger issues and problems and societal sickness of prejudice and racism, from which too much of America still suffers. It's just incredibly distressing, at least to me. I was so thrilled with what I thought was the progress America and Americans had made. I thought we'd come so far, turned a page, grown up a little as a nation. Conquered one of our demons and moved beyond it, leaving it permanently in history's garbage dump. Sadly, no such luck.

[Dawson Leery]

101. "Ambulance chaser Mark O'Mara"

attempted to force the family which Zimmerman allegedly saved to give a press conference to honor Zimmerman.

[mzmolly]

102. Holy

shit.

[Nevernose]

109. O'Mara was a State's Attorney for 30 years

He probably knows lots of other attorneys. A least, that's e non-conspiratorial argument, but nothing about e Zimmerman trial would surprise me at this point.

[SummerSnow]

113. Hmm did they stack the deck?

[BainsBane]

128. Yes, you all organize for gun proliferation here

A lawyer on here told me off for suggesting that was a conflict of interest. S/he insisted I had no idea what I was talking about.

[diabeticman]

135. Kicking it

[HeiressofBickworth]

136. And here's another theory (freshly pulled out of my ass, but

interesting to contemplate just the same).

Let's say juror B37 was the mole and she was the conduit of information both directions. Information about the initial voting of the jury for the press and whatever information was brought in by her husband during those family visits the sheriff allowed.

I agree with another post that said that being married to an attorney is a conflict of interest for a potential juror. She should never have been empaneled in the first place. But having made that initial mistake, family visits should never have been allowed. Too much opportunity to discuss the trial.

[onenote]

140. See post #86

In addition to not letting the wife of a lawyer on a jury (and of course lawyers themselves), what about parents of lawyers, children of lawyers, siblings of lawyers? Just curious where you'd draw the line.

[Dagny_K]

141. If they're in the same practice area, very possible!

I would not be surprised if JurorB37s lawyer husband knows Mark O'Mara but I assume it could just be in passing or possibly from opposite sides of the courtroom.

Seminole County is not very big at all. As an Orlando lawyer from Orange County, Mark O'Mara might stand out when he's on a case in Seminole. Lawyers in the same practice areas can really get to know who everybody is, even in a larger jurisdiction.

Still, I think being married to a lawyer, sequestered or not, is a good reason to excuse a juror.

[newcriminal]

145. Speaking as a lawyer's wife

I would be pissed if I was dismissed from jury duty just because of my husband's profession. I am sure he knows several lawyers that I don't, and I work with him.

[Just Saying]

146. A few thoughts on this

First off, I doubt it will make any difference at this point. If she lied, perhaps she could/would be punished but I don't think it will effect the verdict at this point.

Second, people have mentioned the population of Sanford, but this was a Seminole County Court and jurors would have come from all of the county. Population about 400K.

Next, in what circumstances are jury questionnaires used? Is it a FL thing or done just for high profile cases? I did not fill out any questionaire when I served.

And finally, when I served, we were asked during voir dire if we knew the defendant, victim or lawyers. Interestingly enough, a fellow potential juror was asked by a prosecutor "Do you remember meeting me at so and so's wedding?" Turns out the prosecutor remembered her and was aquatinted with her son. The juror didn't remember the prosecutor but she was subsequently dismissed anyway.

[GreenStormCloud]

147. In a community like that, all lawyers will know each other.

Z's lawyers probably know the prosecution attorneys also.