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.
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.
Just wait until the jury walks into the room.
Tweets will be flying about “they are not looking at the defendant it means”
etc.
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.
So true.
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!
Thanks SeekAndFind.
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?
Shameful.
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.
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.