Skip to comments.Zimmerman Trial - DELIBERATIONS: Two Hours Into Deliberations Jury Had Question (VIDEO)
Posted on 07/13/2013 4:52:03 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Lawyers and media go into full "what does it mean" mode when during deliberations the jury sends out a question. The lawyers' legs turn to noodles while they wait for the Judge to read the question(s) posed. (A lot can be speculated by jurors' questions.)
The process goes something like this:
- Jurors agree on the question. They write it on to a piece of paper. (No e-mail, texts, or electronic means used to communicate the question.)
- A juror hands it to the deputy / bailiff posted at the jury room door.
- The bailiff walks it to the judge who reads it.
- BY LAW, counsel on both sides must be notified and summoned to court that "the jury has a question."
- After counsel arrive in court the Judge reads the question, on the record.
- The Judge and counsel then discuss a response, how the Judge answer the question.
- The Judge send the jury a written answer, provide the jury what they asked for (a paper document), or even a refusal by the Judge to answer the question.
The question this jury had, two hours into deliberations, you can listen in the video, but it was something like:
"Is there an inventory list of what is in evidence?"
It appears that everyone agreed to provide that to the jury.
What does THAT question mean? Hell, I dunno. My best guesses:
- Asking for an "exhibits list" of ADMITTED evidence two hours into deliberations could mean anything.
1. The jury has reached a verdict and they want a list to make sure they did not miss anything.
2. They are NOT near a verdict and thought it would be handy to have an exhibits list to refer to while they deliberate.
3. They could be NEAR a verdict, but want to continue to deliberate and want an exhibits list simply because they are being careful. They want to consider all charges and evidence.
4. They are near a verdict, but are worried about having targets on their backs, or being responsible for riots (with a not guilty verdict) so they want to appear to have thought long and hard about the verdict.
Note: IMO 3.5 is not that long to deliberate on a two to three week trial (or longer if you include the voir dire process).
I find it very, very interesting that the jury would NOT simply soldier on past 6:00 p.m. This tells me that they were NOT close to reaching a verdict. If they were, they would have stayed past 6:00 p.m. to wrap things up.
This also tells me that the jury is taking their charge (job) very seriously. Many juries would have wanted to reach a verdict simply because they wanted to go home by the weekend, especially if the jury is sequestered like this one.
Regardless of what WE think, George Zimmerman, his counsel, and the prosecution team won't be getting much, if any, sleep tonight.
Thank you for posting the video.
It should be pretty simple, but someone is eaten up with white guilt.
Evidence? What evidence?
To summarize, we don’t know what it meant.
Exactly. I’ve been taken to the woodshed on here for saying white females have been the biggest turncoats and destroyers of our culture. I’m a white female and have to deal with sisters, mom, aunts, and some of them who vote R, yet still would convict.
Look for a manslaughter conviction just because these women need to vindicate a poor dead “child”.. mark my words.
They may also be slightly relieved that the jury didn't slam dunk second degree murder. If that's any consolation. Manslaughter and third degree also carry significant time in prison.
I am a conservative woman and I have been treated abysmally because women are supposed to be liberals
Months later, a white male jurist gave an interview with a local talk radio guy and he was very despondent over his vote of guilty. He was the only one who was trying to hold on to a not-guilty vote but the intense pressure and bullying by the other jury members finally beat him down........
“I find it very, very interesting that the jury would NOT simply soldier on past 6:00 p.m. This tells me that they were NOT close to reaching a verdict. If they were, they would have stayed past 6:00 p.m. to wrap things up. “
This was my exact thought. They were at an impasse with no end in sight for the night. So start over tomorrow.
But others had interesting theories..such as they had decided but didn’t want to be leaving for their homes in the evening hours, etc.
I am hoping that at least one will hold out for a Hung Jury if they can’t get an acquittal.
“Breaking News”........Jury will reconvene in 48 minutes.......
I hope you are wrong, but I suspect you are right.
These women are frightened o say “Not Guilty”
I never heard of a jury of 6 women before, what was the defense thinking to agree to that?
This decision should have taken about an hour at most.
No they carry the SAME sentence.
And it is up to the Judge.
If 3rd degree with child abuse had been found he could go into prison for life. West did a double take when the Judge told him it applied.
She had been looking like she was going to let that in before lunch but after lunch she ruled it out.
OR, they realize racial tensions may be high for an expected verdict and this appears to show they are considering it all to show wise judgement.
Exactly what it means AppyPappy!
I find it amusing that some people say with a straight face that Edward Snowden should have used “legal channels”.
In this case, the government has done more railroading than CSX and Zimmerman is INNOCENT!
Government has become the enemy of the people; this case is Exhibit A of that. When thugs are given protections to kill people by Fedgov, then we have lost our country. That is where we now stand.
“Is there an inventory list ”?
This question is indicative that some fishing is going on for skittles background. His background will indicate that G Z was not dealing with an innocent child. Obozo, doj, race baiters, and the shame street media want skittle to still be their son????
I was stunned and frankly in disbelief to find out: 1. Only six on the jury, and 2. All women.
My wife and I went “what the hell?”
A jury of your peers all women in a man to man fight with a self defense issue. It’s just crazy.
If it were twelve with a mixed of men and women I would be very confident, but a little worried at the moment.
My hope is that the writer of this article missed another good theory which was my first thought.
They wanted to appear to have axhaustively deliberated, but ALSO deflate the news media (just a little) and mitigate the riots by doing it on a weekend morning. My understanding was that they would be back early today to continue deliberations.
My theory is the jurors want to have a timeline so that they can determine who was the aggressor in the situation and to be more clear on the facts of the struggle -
I pray these jurors do the right thing and vote according to the facts and not emotion. I’m female,but quite able to look at the evidence and put all emotion aside. I think I’d make a great juror.
Just wait until the jury walks into the room.
Tweets will be flying about “they are not looking at the defendant it means”
I have my donation ready to be mailed to GZ but am waiting for the verdict.
I don't pretend to know but my guess is there are one or two holdouts who refuse to accept the evidence and the other jurors want go over it.
I was once on a jury with two holdouts. They kept coming up with “what about this, what about that”. We had to make the same points over and over. We finally asked for a list of all the exhibits because they said things were in evidence that were not and denied things that were in evidence. In the end the holdouts agreed with the majority.
The Holder clan caused a very dangerous subculture in this country to puff up its chest and do whatever it damn well pleases.
And the media won’t do a thing with 0 in the White Hut.
one of them is married to an attorney.
I think she is the one that said the protests were riots.
I suspect she would know some about Martin’s background.
And, maybe, just maybe, they want to stretch this thing out until Monday to get past the weekend.
This just scares me to death. This and the fact rhat these jurors do not know that the sentence for a lesser included manslaighter has a mandatory prison sentence and that GZ COULD receive exactly the same sentence as for murder 2. It’s despicable that jurors are not informed that a guilty verdict out of sympathy for the gold digging mother of trayvon martin, who didn’t even rear him, could end with a darn near life imprisonment. The man is not guilty of anything. G-d, PLEASE don’t allow this travesty to destroy this man’s entire life.
Sadly, I agree.
The has been the biggest miscarriage of justice that I have ever seen. I don't think I will ever trust a single prosecutor or judge in the rest of my life.
I may take crap for this but knowing a lawyers wife is on the jury gives me some relief.
My wife is very conservative/ constitutional libertarian (pro life and pro gun).
This case was a no brainer for her.
She said basically “you attack a guy watching over his neighborhood you should expect to get shot.”
I love that woman!
The fact that the jurors are not aware of Martin’s background is disturbing to me.......that is a HUGE flaw is the “justice” system. Everything must be known of one guy but not the other. Virtually everything should have been admissible in court as a man’s life hangs in the balance.
Someone on the live thread last evening mentioned that very thing.
It went on the lines of, the jury was 5-1 for acquittal, but there was one holdout and they wanted the evidence list to beat some sense into her.
There WILL be riots, regardless of the verdict.
Maybe Catsrus is on to something: running out the clock on the weekend?
There is no evidence and if they convict on emotion, they will bear this crime to the end of their lives (particularly when they learn that Trayvon was actually a thug, and not a sweet young boy).
I think it is possible that a wife of a lawyer who knows she is being called up to be on a jury might talk to her husband about it. Might look on the internet about Martin’s history.
But then again, she might intentionally stay away from all talk of it.
It’s hard to say.
But like you, I have held out hope over that juror.
“Government has become the enemy of the people; this case is Exhibit A of that. When thugs are given protections to kill people by Fedgov, then we have lost our country. That is where we now stand.”
BINGO. The government, in particular the feds have become the protectors of the savage class.
“Look for a manslaughter conviction just because these women need to vindicate a poor dead child.. mark my words”
I’m going with a hung jury, with the hope that one of these Jurors will follow the law and think this through. A majority will vote guilty of Manslaughter because “it feels right” and “I don’t want to be responsible” for the Amish going on a rampage.
Everything about this case is disturbing to me, including the fact that there was a trial at all. I have never seen anything like this in my life...although I have seen some that come close.
Seems like some jurors are like the rest of us, looking for the prosecution’s case as it never showed up in court.
BTW, this story is from yesterday afternoon. They get back together at 9 AM Saturday Florida time.y
Group dynamics are coming into play.
I am unable to understand this. How could people you don’t know, whom you will never see again influence you?
I sat on a jury trying a man for murder. He was found guilty of killing his second wife (manslaughter). Later, I found out from the investigating officer that the man had served 20 years for killing his first wife (manslaughter)! The jury was not told about this.
And for the NSA trolls, FU.
I would infer that they intend to go through each exhibit entered and ask “What do we get from it”, then score it almost like a baseball box score: Defense 1, Prosecution 1... In my experience, though, an all woman jury wouldn’t seek out a methodical process (not that there is anything wrong with that - but it is the line of thought typically associated with males). But then again, it may mean nothing.
Guess I should have put a sarcasm tag on that one for you
RE: I think it is possible that a wife of a lawyer who knows she is being called up to be on a jury might talk to her husband about it. Might look on the internet about Martins history.
Are they allowed to use the internet or even watch TV?
Not while sequestered