Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why Zimmerman Juror B-29 Is A Model Juror
O'Mara Law Blog ^ | 7/26/2013 | Mark O'Mara

Posted on 07/26/2013 11:37:11 AM PDT by sheikdetailfeather

A number of people have been asking for our response to Juror B-29’s remarks during ABC’s Robin Roberts' interview about the Zimmerman verdict. The big headline from the story is “George Zimmerman got away with murder,” but that is an inaccurate distillation of Juror B-29's statements. Rather, the substance of the juror’s other comments are more complicated and nuanced. Here’s a key exchange that got my attention:

Juror B-29 says, “For myself, he’s guilty, because the evidence shows he’s guilty.”

Robin Roberts asks for a clarification, “He’s guilty of?”

Juror B-29 responds, “Killing Trayvon Martin. 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.”

We acknowledge, and always have, that George killed Trayvon Martin. Over the last 15 months, we’ve heard from a lot of people who feel that anytime a life is lost at someone’s hands, the person responsible is guilty of SOMETHING. Indeed, it is natural to feel this way. In a self-defense case, however, that fact that the defendant committed a homicide is stipulated -- it is undisputed. However, self-defense is one of the instances under the law when homicide is justifiable. People may disagree with self-defense laws, but a juror’s job is not to decide what a law should be, her job is to apply the facts presented at trial to the laws they are instructed about. Based on her statement, it seems Juror B-29 looked at the law, and whether or not she agreed with the law, she did her job and made her decision on a legal basis.

(Excerpt) Read more at omaralawblog.com ...


TOPICS: Government; Politics
KEYWORDS: b29; juror; jurorb29; model; zimmerman
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-58 next last
Robert Zimmerman posted this on Twitter and said to get beyond the title and read the whole thing.
1 posted on 07/26/2013 11:37:11 AM PDT by sheikdetailfeather
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip

Ping


2 posted on 07/26/2013 11:37:57 AM PDT by sheikdetailfeather (Yuri Bezmenov (KGB Defector) - "Kick The Communists Out of Your Govt. & Don't Accept Their Goodies.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sheikdetailfeather

I said this when it came out. She did her job and her duty and I commend her for that. She looked at the evidence. The standard is Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Think is guilty, might be guilty isn’t good enough to convict.


3 posted on 07/26/2013 11:38:51 AM PDT by Darren McCarty (Abortion - legalized murder for convenience)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Darren McCarty
I said this when it came out. She did her job and her duty and I commend her for that. She looked at the evidence.

She did her job because of the other jurors with brains who forced her to do so. If all the jurors were like her, GZ would be in jail now. I believe she's the one who initially voted guilty of murder 2.

4 posted on 07/26/2013 11:42:28 AM PDT by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: sheikdetailfeather

He is definitely guilty of killing Trayvon Martin—IN SELF DEFENSE, that means he is innocent of murder-—in the eyes of the law.


5 posted on 07/26/2013 11:42:33 AM PDT by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sheikdetailfeather
Juror B-29 responds, “Killing Trayvon Martin. 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.”

It's called justifiable homicide and legal.

6 posted on 07/26/2013 11:45:16 AM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sheikdetailfeather

I would agree. She didn’t let her personal biases distort her view of the law. She did her job. She held the prosecutor to the standard of proof, and ruled as the law required.

SnakeDoc


7 posted on 07/26/2013 11:46:00 AM PDT by SnakeDoctor ("I've shot people I like more for less." -- Raylan Givens)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Darren McCarty

Guilt of a crime and guilt of an action are two different things.

I say that the criminally ill should not be permitted free range since ultimately they are not held accountable for their actions under the law. The LEFT has perverted this to demand a litmus test of mental facilities to own a gun.

Crazy people can kill with a gun, a knife, a rock, fire, a car, a pillow, pills, poison, etc. Lock up the criminally insane. PERIOD.


8 posted on 07/26/2013 11:46:25 AM PDT by a fool in paradise (America 2013 - STUCK ON STUPID)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: sheikdetailfeather

Was this the “impartial juror” who was bused in from Chicago four months before the trial?


9 posted on 07/26/2013 11:48:00 AM PDT by Old Sarge (My "KMA List" is growing daily...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sheikdetailfeather
The petulant childish MSM is still trying to win the public opinion battle on this.

But IMO they're just making things worse - rather than change the majority's mind on the verdict they'll just assume B29's comments are more a result of a need to show racial solidarity than a pang of conscious.

10 posted on 07/26/2013 11:50:04 AM PDT by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Venturer

I don’t think you will ever get her to say ,IN SELF DEFENSE


11 posted on 07/26/2013 11:50:11 AM PDT by molson209
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: sheikdetailfeather

Excellent response and entirely correct.


12 posted on 07/26/2013 11:53:12 AM PDT by Attention Surplus Disorder (Both parties are trying to elect a new PEOPLE.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: molson209

The verdict is “not guilty”, I’ve read the jury instructions and a lot of the testimony.

Zimmerman’s attorneys convinced the jury there was reasonable doubt Zimmerman was guilty.

We all speculate.


13 posted on 07/26/2013 11:53:15 AM PDT by BeadCounter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: sheikdetailfeather

14 posted on 07/26/2013 11:53:16 AM PDT by Fido969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sheikdetailfeather
I saw that interview on GMA this morning. The juror was thoughtful and introspective, and it was made clear that she wanted no money for being interviewed. She said she originally thought "second degree murder" but the way the law is written, she had to vote "not guilty". She's dark-skinned, has children of her own, and seemed to feel as a mother would about the death of a child.

She kept repeating that it's the way the law was written and presented that persuaded her that she had to vote "not guilty". I wish people such as Obama, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Jay Z had even 1/10 of the wisdom she exhibited.

15 posted on 07/26/2013 11:53:22 AM PDT by grania
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Darren McCarty

I have a serious issue of her saying he “got away with murder”. Murder is a crime. Accusing a man found innocent by trial of that crime is slander per se in the legal context.


16 posted on 07/26/2013 11:53:25 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: sheikdetailfeather
...but a juror’s job is not to decide what a law should be, her job is to apply the facts presented at trial to the laws they are instructed about...

Sorry, but this is an incorrect statement that disregards the full purpose of a jury.

The jury is fully charged to judge, not only the defendendant's guilt or innocence to the charges, but also to judge the law as well as the application of it.

Thus, the principle of jury nullification.

The judges and lawyers might not like it, but it's the duty of juries to judge all aspects of a case between the state and a citizen.

Jury nullification was most widely applied during mid-1800s when people were charged with helping slaves escape. Even when the defendants pleaded guilty, upstanding, moral juries refused to convict them because they rightly felt slavery laws were immoral and should not be enforced.

17 posted on 07/26/2013 11:54:29 AM PDT by Ol' Dan Tucker (People should not be afraid of the government. Government should be afraid of the people)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ol' Dan Tucker
but a juror’s job is not to decide what a law should be, her job is to apply the facts presented at trial to the laws they are instructed about.

WRONG!

18 posted on 07/26/2013 11:56:23 AM PDT by glorgau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: sheikdetailfeather

She’s only an ideal juror as far as the verdict.

She did her job as juror. But going on TV and saying “Zimmerman is guilty” is a horrible use of words that leaves a portion of the public angry at Zimmerman.

The exchange revealed that the jury didn’t feel they proved Zimmerman intentionally killed Martin. But her comments fed the press headlines and hurt public opinion.

It would have been far better that she said he was “Not guilty of intentionally killing Martin”. Or “Not guilt by reason of Self defense”. If she wanted to acknowledge Zimmerman killed Martin she should have left the guilt word out of it.


19 posted on 07/26/2013 11:56:39 AM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sheikdetailfeather

She’s only an ideal juror as far as the verdict.

She did her job as juror. But going on TV and saying “Zimmerman is guilty” is a horrible use of words that leaves a portion of the public angry at Zimmerman.

The exchange revealed that the jury didn’t feel they proved Zimmerman intentionally killed Martin. But her comments fed the press headlines and hurt public opinion.

It would have been far better that she said he was “Not guilty of intentionally killing Martin”. Or “Not guilt by reason of Self defense”. If she wanted to acknowledge Zimmerman killed Martin she should have left the guilt word out of it.


20 posted on 07/26/2013 11:56:40 AM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sheikdetailfeather

She is the very model of a modern major juror girl.


21 posted on 07/26/2013 11:57:53 AM PDT by Pollster1 ("Shall not be infringed" is unambiguous.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sheikdetailfeather

This skull full of mush does not know what ‘guilty’ means. He was not charged with killing TM. He never denied that he did that. He was charged with Murder and that is different than Killing. He did not ‘get away with murder’. The verdict was that no murder too place.


22 posted on 07/26/2013 11:58:33 AM PDT by TalonDJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: grania

they are used to jury nulification, following the law is too confusing for them.

(see star trek original series “mirror mirror”, a civilized man can act the savage but a savage can not act the civilized man.)


23 posted on 07/26/2013 11:59:43 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: sheikdetailfeather

I agree with this and I’d take it one step further.

What if this juror did her civic duty and now feels threatened by the mob and his saying “guilty” out of justifiable fear for her own personal security and safety?


24 posted on 07/26/2013 11:59:56 AM PDT by 2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sheikdetailfeather
Zimmerman Juror B-29 Is A Model Juror

....and,black. Wadda ya know?

25 posted on 07/26/2013 12:01:17 PM PDT by Puppage (You may disagree with what I have to say, but I shall defend to your death my right to say it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: maggief; SE Mom; kristinn

The MSM needs to but out IMHO


26 posted on 07/26/2013 12:04:38 PM PDT by hoosiermama (Obama: "Born in Kenya" Lying now or then)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Fido969

Yup! Juror B-29 dropped the bomb!


27 posted on 07/26/2013 12:05:05 PM PDT by Dr. Bogus Pachysandra ( Ya can't pick up a turd by the clean end!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62

O’Mara is cutting her more slack than I will. Her statements are confused and contradictory. Thousands of juries have delt with the same insructions but she couldn’t figure them out on her own. The other jurors had to set her straight. I wonder how long she alone held up the verdict. She’s also conflicted from the blowback for being the minority juror who “let him off”.


28 posted on 07/26/2013 12:05:26 PM PDT by ironman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Darren McCarty

I agree. A jury isn’t the place for personal feelings or opinions. She did her job regardless of how she felt about it. She should be commended for that. As for her comments now, she can say what she wants about it and people will make a judment accordingly.


29 posted on 07/26/2013 12:06:46 PM PDT by CityCenter (Pleading the 5th is just so 1972.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Darren McCarty
My only time on a jury was a 2nd degree murder charge.

The prosecution had a better case than they had against Zimmerman, and a jury of twelve took about an hour to deliberate and come to the conclusion we could not convict the guy.

One hour. We had someone who was going to be a hold out, a guy as weak minded as this woman. He posited it was a set up to kill this guy, we reminded him there WAS NO PROOF of his assertion, that we had to find the guy guilty without a reasonable doubt or send up an acquittal. One hour.

30 posted on 07/26/2013 12:07:55 PM PDT by Lakeshark (KILL THE BILL! CALL. FAX. WRITE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: sheikdetailfeather

If a neighborhood watchman can’t follow a strange person to see where they go, then why have a watchman?


31 posted on 07/26/2013 12:09:44 PM PDT by ex-snook (God is Love)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sheikdetailfeather

O’Mara makes a fair point.


32 posted on 07/26/2013 12:11:18 PM PDT by mylife (Ted Cruz understands the law, and he does not fear the unlawful.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
It would have been far better that she said he was “Not guilty of intentionally killing Martin”.

But Zimmerman did "intentionally" kill Martin. He deliberately pointed the gun at his chest and pulled the trigger.

This was stipulated by the defense. The question was simply whether he was justified in intentionally killing Martin and the answer to that was yes.

33 posted on 07/26/2013 12:13:02 PM PDT by P-Marlowe (There can be no Victory without a fight and no battle without wounds)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: grania

Black Hispanic = jury of his peer.

I thought it was an all-white jury that ‘let George Zimmerman hunt a child down and shoot him like dawwwwwwg!’ ?


34 posted on 07/26/2013 12:13:49 PM PDT by TigerClaws
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: sheikdetailfeather

MoM nails it. The media took what the juror said and twisted it to say something she did not intend to say. That should be a lesson to other jurors, that the media, who work for the enemies of the Republic, will do the same to any of them. George did kill Treyvon. It was justifiable homicide. Instead of black people getting the me3ssage that they cannot thoughtlessly assault anyone they want because they can be shot dead for the foolishness, the media is herding balck people to an erroneous conclusion meant to extend their exploitation by evil people like holder, Jackson, Sharpton, and Obama.


35 posted on 07/26/2013 12:16:30 PM PDT by MHGinTN (Being deceived can be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sheikdetailfeather
Those that use the Race-Hustle to make money use Murder and Kill interchangeably, to an audience that doesn't know the difference.

100's of thousands were "killed" during WWII; but few were "murdered".

Today, you can stir up the 95% who voted for The Messiah/aka "The Black Guy", just by pointing out the perps/criminals/rapists/muggers/etc. are black even when the fact is known, but the State-Run-Media leave out the Race of the perps, unless they're white, OR, they can point out they drove an SUV.....

36 posted on 07/26/2013 12:33:56 PM PDT by traditional1 (Amerika.....Providing public housing for the Mulatto Messiah)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sheikdetailfeather

37 posted on 07/26/2013 12:34:32 PM PDT by JoeProBono (Mille vocibus imago valet;-{)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sheikdetailfeather

Thanks for posting.

The lawblog is very informative, and O’Maras simple description shows the difference between the headline grabbing media, and someone who speaks simple, understandable english is striking.


38 posted on 07/26/2013 12:37:34 PM PDT by patriotspride
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pollster1

Gilbert and Zimmerman?


39 posted on 07/26/2013 12:37:57 PM PDT by JennysCool (My hypocrisy goes only so far)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Old Sarge
Was this the “impartial juror” who was bused in from Chicago four months before the trial?

Yes, this is indeed that juror. Funny how these things all connect back to Chicago, eh?

40 posted on 07/26/2013 12:38:17 PM PDT by Major Matt Mason ("Journalism is dead. All news is suspect." - Noamie)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe
But Zimmerman did "intentionally" kill Martin. ...The question was simply whether he was justified in intentionally killing Martin and the answer to that was yes.

I know but I was trying to put it in context of what the Juror said. She said it badly and even the exchange where she clarified it was still badly worded.

She should have said, he was "Not Guilty because there was substantial evidence that it was self defense."

41 posted on 07/26/2013 12:49:44 PM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: sheikdetailfeather
I agree mostly with O'Mara.

The words being bandied about that "he got away with murder" are Robin Robert's words not hers. Those words were part of the question being asked.

That being said she intended to make this a hung jury but was unable to because the other jurors more than likely called her out on it -- and she didn't like that.

When asked for reasons for her vote, she probably kept telling the other jurors "I just know in my heart that he's guilty" but they kept asking for reasons from the law and the evidence but she had none.

And this interview is her temper tantrum.

42 posted on 07/26/2013 1:29:49 PM PDT by Uncle Chip
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten
What if this juror did her civic duty and now feels threatened by the mob and his saying “guilty” out of justifiable fear for her own personal security and safety?

Then she should have remained anonymous like the rest of her fellow jurors.

By her coming out with this temper tantrum she has now put them at risk.

43 posted on 07/26/2013 1:43:53 PM PDT by Uncle Chip
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62

I couldn’t tell you how many juries I have been on where we spent all our time behind the closed doors convincing 1 or 2 jurors that they are wrong (stupid). One time there was one juror who when asked why she was voting not guilty said.....they didn’t prove he was guilty. I replied......yes they did, it was while you were sleeping. I had looked over at her and she was asleep!


44 posted on 07/26/2013 1:51:09 PM PDT by sheana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: glorgau
but a juror’s job is not to decide what a law should be, her job is to apply the facts presented at trial to the laws they are instructed about.

WRONG!

To paraphrase a Hebrew National TV commercial from days of yore:

"We can't. We have to answer to an even Higher authority."

(See: Hebrew National 1975)

45 posted on 07/26/2013 2:05:18 PM PDT by Ol' Dan Tucker (People should not be afraid of the government. Government should be afraid of the people)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: CityCenter
A jury isn’t the place for personal feelings or opinions.

Really? Let's turn on the way-back machine to 1850 or so.

You're sitting on a jury deciding whether to convict a man of aiding a slave to freedom in violation of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 which required the federal government to pursue runaway slaves.

The man has confessed to the crime.

Do you vote to convict?

If so, then you're forgetting that the purpose of a jury in our Republic is to act as a legal bulwark to protect moral men who stand up against immoral laws being enforced by an oppressive and tyrannical government.

The jury is not merely a trier of facts in the case, but also to try whether the laws and enforcement are just.

Naturally, the court system does not want juries to know that they are supposed to be judging, not only the facts of the case, but also the laws and their enforcement.

46 posted on 07/26/2013 2:18:55 PM PDT by Ol' Dan Tucker (People should not be afraid of the government. Government should be afraid of the people)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: sheikdetailfeather
CNN had a panel discussion about this juror this morning. I jotted down some notes about what CNN's legal analysts said, FWIW...

...the three analysts, all lawyers, were Mo Ivory, Jeff Gold and Ryan Smith.

I'm not going bother noting much of what Mo Ivory said, besides her insistence that "George Zimmerman IS guilty of murder!" (which is enough to reveal her total emotionalism and lack of legal professionalism).

The other two CNN panelits had more interesting comments:

Jeff Gold said he sat in the courtroom for most of the trial, and noticed that Juror B29 wasn't paying as close attention as the others. He said he didn't believe she was bullied "at all," but that she had "buyer's remorse," seeing this as "black and white" after coming back out into "the community" - he also thought she didn't mean "murder" when she said GZ "got away with murder," but meant "killing" instead. Gold opined that the protests after the verdict were the "real bullying," and were what had "pressured" Juror B-29 into making her post-trial statement.

Panelist Ryan Smith agreed that the post-verdict protests might have pressured this juror; he also said he was in the courtroom during the prosecution's closing argument, and noted Juror B-29 taking lots of notes from the prosecution's PowerPoint. This led him to believe she might be a "voice for the prosecution" once she got to the jury room.

Ryan Smith concluded that Juror B-29 took her "gut feelings" into the jury room, but switched her position after listening to others, and "looking at the law."

47 posted on 07/26/2013 2:22:56 PM PDT by shhrubbery! (NIH!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sheikdetailfeather

What scares me is that my life or one of my loved ones could be in the hands of a knucklehead like Juror B-29. And since finding low-information voters appears to be the object of the juror hunt, it is not out of the realm of possibility that one could populate an entire jury with such as B-29.

Also, if she’s Hispanic, then Martin is black.


48 posted on 07/26/2013 2:43:37 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Update: B-29 Attorney: David M Chico – *Update*

Chico was the prosecutor in the 2005 case against Zimmerman

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2013/07/26/b-29-attorney-david-m-chico/


49 posted on 07/26/2013 2:47:49 PM PDT by Uncle Chip
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip

Chico and the Man.


50 posted on 07/26/2013 3:09:58 PM PDT by BeadCounter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-58 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson