Skip to comments.Did Potential Zimmerman Juror Lie to Court?
Posted on 06/12/2013 11:56:59 PM PDT by South40
A potential juror at the George Zimmerman trial who told the court he had little knowledge of the case apparently indicated otherwise on Facebook.
"I CAN tell you THIS. 'Justice' IS Coming," the juror appeared to write of the Zimmerman case on the Facebook page for the "Coffee Party Progressives," a page with which he was confronted in Judge Debra Nelson's courtroom.
The potential juror, assigned the number E7, who described himself as an "underemployed" musician and painter, told the court that he did not have a lot of knowledge about the case when it first happened.
(Excerpt) Read more at gma.yahoo.com ...
That’s why the political left like Mohammadans so much. Their “religion” says it’s OK to lie.
Good lawyers run a full investigation of every potential juror and liars are likely to be caught.
Zimmerman is in serious danger of being convicted. Anything other than a full acquittal will be headed for appellate court, and the presiding judge may have already made some evidentiary rulings which are problematic.
What, I am stunned, stunned..you mean progressive pricks lie..no cant be/sarc
Progressive is short for Communist which is what these punks are..these same punks, if confronted by Trayvon Martin in a dark alley, would have shot him too, oh wait I forgot, progressives don’t believe in guns..instead they would have thrown a shoe at him
“Underemployed musician and painter”
In other words, a low information, Obama voting, entitlement grubbing slacker.
What? It’s Plick! Plick! You puckin Plick! Plick!
Well, the crazy lefties did set up an org called the coffee party which was supposed to fight the tea party.
It was a flop.
Guaranteed if this guy was posting on CTR or other anti - lynching sites....this judge and Ben Crump would have had that dude swinging from a noose
Absolutely disturbing with this Black Ku Klux Klan lynching of Zimmerman in my county
He’s a broken-nosed violent piece of work. Looks as if he’s got a record of smacking his girlfriend.
Pics on an earlier post.
Unfortunately its already a given. Just to keep Obama's people from burning and murdering. It will most likely be a complete travesty.
I would lie to get on that jury and then do all that I can so that Zimmerman walks.
a person resembling E7 wrote on March 21, 2012, the same date as on the court record, an inflammatory comment in response to a posting about the case touting the site www.justicefortrayvonmartin.com. Besides vowing that justice was coming, the Facebook comment apparently by the prospective juror alleged a conspiracy involving Zimmerman and local police. "With the noise WE made it couldn't be covered up," the commenter said. "I only hope the Feds go farther than just THIS case in investigating This 'Police Force. There seems to be no end to the chicanery which could be hidden by political activism in the management of Facebook . . .
That comment subsequently vanished from the Facebook thread.
It certainly is interesting, in general, that with the www everyone has the ability to broadcast their opinions - and we are only too willing to do so. Nay, we are eager to do so - but when a crunch comes, that doesnt leave much wiggle room. If any Freeper - let alone a Conservative Tree House Treeper - were called for jury duty, the prosecution would have a very strong handle on who it was talking to, or about to a judge. The irony is that, theoretically, the court is looking for people who will accord the presumption of innocence to the defendant - and that, most any FReeper would be likely to do. The only appropriate questions are whether the potential juror has an open mind in addition to the ability to accord the defendant the presumption of innocence. And we know that the jurors will hear firsthand rather than over the internet, and from the participants themselves rather than from third parties, be they never so expert-sounding and dispassionate-sounding.
Problem (for the defense) is, we come so close to knowing that the prosecution doesnt have any better case than Nifong did against the Duke Lacrosse team, and that the defense can come closer to proving innocence than the prosecution can come to proving guilt, that the prosecution would do anything it could to keep one of us off the jury. The quote above illustrates how hopelessly contaminated any possible jury is likely to be. Nobody doesnt know about the case, and nobody doesnt have a preconception of what the evidence will show. Emphatically including the POTUS.
very few people tell the truth, unfortunately
they try to change it to benefit themselves
You wouldnt succeed in lying your way on; your opinion is too deeply felt. And even if you did, you would be living in the neighborhood where all those people who after Zimmermans hide would be after yours if you did what you say. Would you actually want that?Zimmerman has a suit pending against NBC for maliciously broadcasting an edited version of Zimmermans conversation with the police dispatcher. The editing put in Zimmermans mouth an answer to one question which was actually voiced in answer to an entirely different question; it is an open-and-shut case of defamation. It may have been a tactical necessity for the Zimmerman legal team to delay that case until after the criminal case, but on the merits it is somewhere between sad and disastrous to do so IMHO. First because the legal team need the money, and second because what NBC did was a tort irrespective not only of the verdict of the jury in the criminal case, even of the actual guilt of Zimmerman in the abstract, assuming the two may be different. And NBC deserves to lose - big.
Not only does NBC deserve to lose, but the rest of journalism deserves to lose, too. You cant sue the rest of journalism, but you might sue the Associated Press and its members individually - and that would come to pretty much the same thing. All of them have not only damaged Zimmerman, who wouldnt even be on trial if he hadnt been first convicted in the papers and on the TV news, they have damaged the public interest generally by making a fair trial problematic.
Lets face it, the verdict of this trial will be controversial, because although everyone knows how it should come out, vast numbers of people know contradictory things. It seems exceedingly unlikely that that many people will change their mind. If Zimmerman is acquitted, journalism owes Zimmerman such a huge apology that you can be sure that none will be forthcoming. And if Zimmerman is convicted, in a trial that would not even have occurred if journalism had been honest . . .
Both times I was on jury duty, once the case was given to us for deliberation, the first thing I did was educate the jury on jury nullification. ;-)
There is so little evidence to support any action against zimmerman that I think it would be impossible to convict him of involuntary manslaughter.
And in the day of the internet and the courtroom as “fishbowl”, kangaroo courts for high profile cases are very difficult to pull off.
We here about all those innocent black men being convicted of raping white girls back 70 years ago and want to apply the concept to this case. But let me ask you, if those cases had the national spotlight during the trial, even without the internet, do you think they would have resulted in convictions?
That kind of corruption only works well in the dark. You keep it local at all costs. That foundational principle is already blown out of the water in this case. It will be virtually impossible to run an overtly unfair trial in the current political/technological environemnt, and that is what it would take to even come close to getting a conviction here.
I could be wrong, but that’s my opinion, for what it’s worth.
That is a good deed - any time an unconstitutional law is used for prosecution, the law needs to be nullified by the jury.
“Luckily this idiot will be weeded out and dismissed due to his online comments.”
Why wouldn’t he get time for perjury? Ooops—I forgot who the judge is favoring in the outcome. I bet she’ll count his dismissal against the defense instead.
I break down rules to “foundational principles”. Basically, what I tell the jurors is that the only question the judge *may* ask you after the verdict is read is if it is your personal verdict. This means that you can side with the prosecution simply because the defendant looks like someone you don’t like. Not that I would consider it the right thing to do. Nevertheless, you have that right.
The only thing you CAN’T do is base your personal verdict on information about the event that you told the court you didn’t have (e.g. the defendant beat you up in jr high but you claimed to not know him.)
There is little to no chance of acquittal, regardless of evidence. The best we can hope for is a hung jury.
You’re probably right. The first thing they’ll notice is my skin color. The second thing they’ll notice is that I’m not on welfare...
The third is that you speak proper English.
If you dress respectfully for the court (you know, nice slacks, tucked in collared shirt, maybe a suit coat) you get kicked off right away.
So glad they caught him. He committed perjury!