Posted on 07/26/2013 11:37:11 AM PDT by sheikdetailfeather
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."
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.
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.
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!
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)
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.
...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."
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.
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/
Chico and the Man.
Being on a jury is serious business. Freedom and justice are at stake. But being a juror is not necessarily difficult. You follow instructions, the law and pay attention.
Well put. Did you notice in the interview that juror Maddy said she felt forced...the host Robin immediately said “Yes....” (on the edge of her seat hoping she would say “to come to the same decision as the other jurors.”) and the juror said “into being a part of the death of TM.”
ABC and RR are trying to imply that this lone black juror got rolled by the 5 white ones who ganged up on her — but as she said, she was the loudest and the most outspoken — but obviously with the least to say.
She is.
I think O'Mara is being a bit overly kind here.
Not as much as you might think, because I think this juror's words have been twisted somewhat. She seems to stand by the decision. And she didn't seem to come up with the declaration that Zimmerman "got away with murder." Those words seem to have been put in her mouth. She repeated them and seems to have somewhat agreed with them, putting her own spin on the words. But the words really don't seem to have been hers to start with.
Still, how anyone could possibly sit through the trial that I saw, and see the same evidence I saw, and have the necessary information on the legal process, and go into the jury room and in the initial vote say that Zimmerman should be convicted of 2nd degree murder is beyond me. It's beyond me how a juror could vote even that he be convicted of manslaughter is beyond me as well.
There simply wasn't any real evidence of anything other than legitimate self defense.
4 minutes missing from the Prosecution’s narrative. That’s what the Defense emphasized in closing arguments.
Page 12 of the Jury Instructions http://media.cmgdigital.com/shared/news/documents/2013/07/12/jury_instructions_1.pdf does in fact mention “Stand your ground” (’stand his ground’ is actually what it reads) but we are told nonetheless, this is not an SYG case. I personally don’t think it is SYG either but I’m no expert either.
This tid-bit mentioned on the Factor show being hosted by Laura Ingraham, she sure does a good job.
I question your play on words.
The difference between murder and manslaughter is intent vs. accident (lack of intent).
We know that Zimmerman didn't "intend" to shoot Martin when he put the gun on his belt as left home. We know that Zimmerman didn't unholster the gun when he first saw Martin.
Second, Zimmerman had no time to "deliberate" anything, as his action was nearly instantaneous and out of panic. He didn't deliberately point the gun at Martin's chest and shoot, he rapidly drew the gun and quickly fired one shot in the middle of a struggle.
Cute post, but wildly off-target. And from reading all the live threads, I know that you know better.
-PJ
Shakespeareana
#jurorb29 2 her child:
The evidence shows u did not steal the cookie, but I’m gonna spank u anyway cuz u stole the cookie.
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.