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 ...
Ping
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.
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.
He is definitely guilty of killing Trayvon Martin—IN SELF DEFENSE, that means he is innocent of murder-—in the eyes of the law.
It's called justifiable homicide and legal.
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
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.
Was this the “impartial juror” who was bused in from Chicago four months before the trial?
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.
I don’t think you will ever get her to say ,IN SELF DEFENSE
Excellent response and entirely correct.
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.
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.
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.
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.
WRONG!
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.
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.
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.