Zimmerman Trial - DELIBERATIONS: Two Hours Into Deliberations Jury Had Question (VIDEO)

YOUTUBE ^ | 07/12/2013 | Michael Mortimer

[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.

or

2. They are NOT near a verdict and thought it would be handy to have an exhibits list to refer to while they deliberate.

or

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.

or

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.

[SWAMPSNIPER]

It’s obvious now that the jury is infected with at least one case of stupid, there isn’t anything complicated about the trial.

[SWAMPSNIPER]

Where did you hear that nonsense?

[ModelBreaker]

“would I be scared in that situation, and how would that fear affect their thought process”.

Or “men are so stupid. He should have just stayed in the car.”