home

Juror B-37: Part 2 of Anderson Cooper's Interview

Anderson Cooper's interview with Juror B-37 is airing now.

Some thoughts as I'm watching. Juror B-37 said it wouldn't have made any difference if GZ had testified. The result would have been the same. To me that furthers the argument the state miscalculated by introducing his police interviews, re-enactment, and particularly his Hannity interview.

A prosecutor legal analyst on the show just said the defense got the jurors to look into GZ's heart. Actually, it was prosecutor John Guy. In his rebuttal closing, Guy asked the jury to look into George Zimmerman's heart and find hate. He talked about the window into George Zimmerman's soul. He told them to use their "G-d given common sense." They followed his suggestions. Unfortunately for the state, in doing so, they rejected the conclusion he though they would make. Another big failure in their argument. [More...]

Anderson Cooper clarified that a juror who others have described as wanting to leave was responding to events in her personal life, not the legal issues in the case.

B-37 said a final juror who came around only took 30 minutes to do so.

Both Toobin and Mark Geragos said the jury's view of the evidence and the law was entirely reasonable.

Unbelievable. The prosecutor on the show just said the state should have introduced race because even though it wouldn't have changed the jury's mind, it would have benefited perceptions of the viewers, the audience and America. Since when are trials conducted for television viewers and audience and the country at large?

< Zimmerman: The State's Failure to Humanize Trayvon Martin | On the Cover of the Rolling Stone: Jahar's World >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    More than 20 Years (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by RickyJim on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 08:43:39 PM EST
    Unbelievable. The prosecutor on the show just said the state should have introduced race because even though it wouldn't have changed the jury's mind, it would have benefited perceptions of the viewers, the audience and America. Since when are trials conducted for television viewers and audience and the country at large?

    When did CourtTV start?  I suppose somebody noticed that the adversary system could be quite entertaining (much more so than trials where mostly judges question the witnesses) so it was decided that real US trials can draw viewers looking for fun as much as fiction like Perry Mason.

    that's a lot different than saying (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 09:04:33 PM EST
    trials should be conducted as a spectator sport. The public is free to watch them, not to participate in them. No trial is conducted for the benefit of the viewing public.

    Parent
    This was a show trial (3.67 / 3) (#29)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 07:25:36 AM EST
    .

    This was a show trial from start to finish.  It was brought due to political pressure, not on evidence.

    .

    Parent

    Statement of Four Other Jurors (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by RickyJim on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 10:30:19 PM EST
    "The opinions of Juror B-37, expressed on the Anderson Cooper show were her own, and not in any way representative of the jurors listed below," said the statement, signed by Jurors B51, B76, E6 and E40..

    See here.

    4 Other Jurors Issue a Statement (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by indy in sc on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 10:31:46 PM EST
    Discussed here.

    One left that we haven't heard from...

    Thx 4 URL (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by rage of on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 06:09:59 AM EST
    B37 said multiple times she was only speaking for herself yet the other jurors issue a statement distancing themselves. Looks like there may be more fireworks

    Parent
    Well, (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by dainla on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 12:26:06 PM EST
    She said she wasn't speaking for them, then basically spoke for them, describing their processes, how long it took them to make up their minds, etc.

      Can't do both.  Either don't speak for them or don't.

    Parent

    The One Not Heard From ... (none / 0) (#42)
    by rcade on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 11:04:09 AM EST
    ... is the Hispanic juror.

    Parent
    Fruit loops everywhere (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by MKS on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 01:24:30 AM EST
    One can find all kinds of stuff on the fringes--of either side.

    Relating to George (5.00 / 2) (#118)
    by flcstud on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 09:21:43 PM EST
    This interview was interesting; I'm glad one juror spoke out so soon.  I don't understand why everyone assumes that B37's ability to empathize with Zimmerman was borne out of racism.  I think her empathy was a natural response because the defense did a good job of humanizing Zimmerman throughout the trial.  They invoked sympathy for the burglaries being committed in Zimmerman's neighborhood.  They had a bunch of friends take the stand to refer to Zimmerman as "George."  Just because she was naturally influenced by the defense's well-crafted presentation does not mean she was racist.  

    How on earth could juror B37 empathize with Trayvon when she never really met him and no one really took the stand to talk about him.  If you are who your friends are, Jeantel's attitude on stand also didn't do much for Trayvon's image.

    I also find it crazy that everyone is badmouthing the juror for her comments about Jeantel and saying that they're patronizing.  I think that her perceptions of Jeantel were spot on, and she didn't have anything to say that liberal commentaries on TV said about Jeantel.  The double standards that have been applied to this trial are incredible.  

    please comment about B-37's interview (none / 0) (#1)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 07:57:02 PM EST
    which is Anderson Cooper, not Piers Morgan.

    I get the impression she was biased (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by txantimedia on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 08:55:45 AM EST
    toward Zimmerman.  Of course there were 5 other jurors, so her biases didn't decide the case.  But some of her statements bothered me.  She seemed confused about the testimony and the evidence.

    I'd like to hear from the jurors who changed their minds, but I don't know if we ever will.

    Parent

    I was originally biased toward Trayvon (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by Isabela Hernandez on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 10:13:35 AM EST
    Then I learned more about him and what likely happened that night, and I became more understanding of Zimmerman's position and his intentions.

    I would expect the same to happen to a juror. Over the course of a case, evidence would sway your opinion and by the end it would make you seem biased toward one side or the other.

    Parent

    It's interesting (3.50 / 2) (#59)
    by dainla on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 12:30:29 PM EST
    I didn't make up my mind until I watched Zimmerman's re-enactment.  At that point, I felt he had done something wrong.

    Should add I'm a writer in Hollywood and his re-enactment was hilarious and very poor writing. Particularly, the part where Trayvon yelled, "You're going to die tonight, motherf&%&#r"  I laughed out loud at how absurd that was.  

    I also don't for a second believe a man who carries a gun to go to the store and is on the neighborhood watch would reach for his phone instead of his gun when approached by a man he was chasing in the dark. Not for a second.  Again, poor writing.

    Should be have been convicted?  No.  Not enough evidence.  But I think George is going to be living a long life with the truth eating away at his soul.

    Parent

    This helps explain Hollywood's view of rest of US (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by Harold on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 12:53:13 PM EST
    I also don't for a second believe a man who carries a gun to go to the store and is on the neighborhood watch would reach for his phone instead of his gun when approached by a man he was chasing in the dark. Not for a second.  Again, poor writing.

    How many people who routinely carry concealed do you know?  I carry a much heftier gun "to go to the store" and anywhere else it's not banned, although I stay far away from anything proactive like neighborhood watches due to the danger this case demonstrates so well.  While I might, depending on the situation, "reach" for my gun I certainly wouldn't draw it or let it be clear I was doing this (it's at 5 o'clock vs. Zimmerman's 3 o'clock), since threatening lethal force at that point is illegal everywhere.

    And I notice a continuity error in your version: how does Zimmerman's gun get back into his holster so that he can draw it at the end?  It would be poor writing indeed for him to continue holding it, Martin ignoring it despite it provoking his legitimate assault, until after at least 40 seconds of MMA "ground and pound" Zimmerman ends up using it.

    Parent

    Okay, (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by dainla on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 02:57:07 PM EST
    >How many people who routinely carry concealed do you know?

    A few, including my father.  I've been around guns quite a bit.  My father has a pistol and for a while was allowed to carry one because of a shootout at a court house.  He was a assistant DA.

    He also was never patrolling residential neighborhoods with one.

    So, you're not the type of person I'm talking about.  I'm talking about the rent a cop, wanna be personal hero type, who carries a gun.

    Though I have been in many situations where I am glad I did not have a gun because someone would be dead.

     >how does Zimmerman's gun get back into his holster so that he can draw it at the end?

    Odd, I never said he was holding his gun.  I said he reached for it.  Just as Zimmerman said he reached for his phone.  Big difference.  Writing is in the subtleties.  Someone reaching for a gun is as threatening a gesture you'll ever encounter and one that would cause a response.

    As much as people rage about others making this case about, you gun guys are equally to blame for jumping to endless conclusions.

    The irony and wonderfulness of your comment is you immediately stereotyped me, not realizing Hollywood is a giant melting pot, we come from all over the country to work out craft and many, many are conservatives, particularly when you get to the working class of Hollywood.

    So, sorry, all conclusions you have reached are false.

    Parent

    Ah, you are impeaching Zimmerman's account (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by Harold on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 04:02:04 PM EST
    Yes, that would be a different scenario, and with his gun at 3 o'clock Martin could very well have noticed and taken that as a potentially justifiable cue to attack.  But Martin would have to move very quickly to stop Zimmerman from finishing that reach and getting a grip on his gun, at which point ... well, I suppose it could happen that way, but you would think Martin would have focused on getting the gun.  Rather obviously a failure to do that from the beginning resulted to his death.

    It's pretty thin gruel to doubt Zimmerman's account, especially with the testimony about his lack of aggressiveness; I've noted in a comment in a previous topic that I think Zimmerman didn't seriously envision the possibility of an assault.  Given that his normal reaction to these events was to go for his phone, I wouldn't expect that to necessarily change under stress, we perform as we practice.

    Parent

    About that 40 secs of MMA (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by BobTinKY on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 03:50:29 PM EST
    Martin atop Zimmerman pounding away.  I recall being in that position as a kid in scrapes, guy on top wailing, what have you.  Used to turn on my stomach and raise myself on hands and knees so I could throw or wiggle the guy off of me, then get away or at least in better position. Seen the move in HS wrestling matches all the time. Very effective and I got to think thhat when the man below has 30 lbs on the guy straddling him it would be even easier to employ.

    But then again, I never tried that move with a loaded gun holstered to my torso.  I don't think George Zimmerman has either. Just the thought puts me in fear of my life.

    Parent

    No HS wrestler (3.50 / 2) (#113)
    by Char Char Binks on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 08:15:14 PM EST
    could even make junior varsity using the "BobTinKY wiggle".

    Parent
    It is an escape move (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by MKS on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 08:19:36 PM EST
    done by wrestlers all the time.  As I recall, you get the same number of points for the escape as a takedown.

    Parent
    By (3.50 / 2) (#116)
    by Char Char Binks on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 08:28:18 PM EST
    wiggling?  Is that effective?  As a former wrestler, I find that highly laughable.

    Parent
    Whatever you need to do (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by MKS on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 08:46:49 PM EST
    to get the space to escape...

    Parent
    You're going to die tonight, motherf&%&#r (none / 0) (#65)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 01:00:27 PM EST
    A quick google finds the phrase, or close to it, in rap songs by Yukmouth (whoever that is) and Snoop Dog.

    Oh, and also that very poorly written movie "The Deer Hunter."

    Parent

    I take it you never saw the Snoop Dogg (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by vicndabx on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 01:25:48 PM EST
    assault trial where he wilted with relief at being found not guilty (one of his security members assaulted someone - I don't remember the exact offense).  Not exactly the picture of murderous toughness.

    Point is, it's music, braggadocio, it's NOT REAL.

    Parent

    Ergo, TM could not have said such a thing (none / 0) (#84)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 02:49:54 PM EST
    and therefor GZ lied about it?

    Parent
    I am skeptical he said it, (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by oculus on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 02:56:03 PM EST
    if he, i.e., Zimmerman, had not previously displayed his firearm, threatened Martin with serious bodily injury or death, and/ or seriously assaulted assaulted Martin. Also, from what we know of how Martin spoke, he would have employed more rap-like language. This quote is way too straightforward.  

    Parent
    First, both of the artists I mentioned (none / 0) (#97)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 03:16:14 PM EST
    who wrote songs containing that phrase are rappers, ie., that phrase is precisely "rap-like language."

    Second, if it is true that TM thought GZ could be a gay rapist and GZ was following him to sexually assault him, I'm not so sure a teenager like TM would not respond in such a manner.

    I can certainly see that if you believe GZ was lying about that phrase, then you would wonder what else was he could have been lying about.

    Parent

    Okay (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by dainla on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 03:20:46 PM EST
    And interesting that you think all young black kids listen to gangsta rap.

    Parent
    Are those two artists "gangsta rappers"? (none / 0) (#103)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 03:28:10 PM EST
    I would have no idea. What exactly is a "gangsta rapper?" I think all black kids listen to it? That phrase proves GZ was lying about the re-enactment?

    Parent
    Ergo (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by vicndabx on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 03:00:58 PM EST
    people don't say things like that in real life - unless they're psychopaths.

    Parent
    Ha (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by dainla on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 02:58:25 PM EST
    Try context.  If you wrote it in that scene, you'd write a laughable scene.

    Nice try, though.

    Parent

    Life is sometimes stranger than fiction. (none / 0) (#111)
    by melamineinNY on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 05:57:55 PM EST
    Really.

    Parent
    What about "You got a problem homie."? (none / 0) (#115)
    by RickyJim on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 08:27:11 PM EST
    I saw this claim on an anti-Zimmerman blog and I wonder if anybody can tell me if they have an opinion about it.
    Trayvon did not say "You got a problem homie." He just didn't -- that is not what a 17 year old says to some creepy stranger he is about to try to murder.


    Parent
    No wonder Hollywood is so out of touch (none / 0) (#66)
    by txantimedia on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 01:07:30 PM EST
    I also don't for a second believe a man who carries a gun to go to the store and is on the neighborhood watch would reach for his phone instead of his gun when approached by a man he was chasing in the dark. Not for a second.  Again, poor writing.

    I recommend you take a CHL class.  You'll learn a thing or two, such as, it is illegal to draw your weapon except in two circumstances: (at least in Texas where I live)
    1. You intend to threaten the use of deadly force because someone is threatening it against you
    2. You intend to shoot to stop an attack that would constitute deadly force against you.

    I have no idea how up on the laws Zimmerman was, but NEVER drawing your weapon EXCEPT to threaten to use or actually use deadly force is a fundamental precept of concealed carry everywhere I've been.

    BTW, I am always armed.  Always.  Grocery store, movie theatre, drug store, gas station, restaurant, doctor's office, you name it.  When I leave the house, I am armed.  And the weapon I carry is larger and more powerful than the one Zimmerman carried, because, if I'm forced to use it, I want it to do sufficient damage to stop the attacker before he harms or kills me.

    Whether he dies or not is subject to shot placement, adrenaline and pure luck, but it's not my intent to kill but to stop the attack.

    Parent

    I have taken a CHL class (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by dainla on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 03:04:13 PM EST
    I mean, come on.  The idea we don't know anything about guns is ridiculous.  I have shot many guns.  I have trained to shoot guns.  I am a writer.  I enjoy being knowledgable about all things.

    All your other points presuppose I stated Zimmerman pulled his gun, when I specifically stated he could have reached for his gun instead of his phone.

    Reached.

    Being the key word.  Ever see someone reach for their weapon or pretend to do so?  I have.  In the lobby of my building.  That's about as terrifying as it gets.  Had I not had my two year old in my arms, I would have attacked that guy to stop whatever he thought he was doing.

    Congrats on being armed.  I'm not and have handled a few situations in which you would have left someone dead or greatly injured.

    Parent

    dainla, in the situation you describe (none / 0) (#105)
    by txantimedia on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 03:29:41 PM EST
    Ever see someone reach for their weapon or pretend to do so?  I have.  In the lobby of my building.  That's about as terrifying as it gets.  Had I not had my two year old in my arms, I would have attacked that guy to stop whatever he thought he was doing.

    That's interesting.  As a CHL holder I would have sought cover and observed him.  Attacking him would be the last thing I would do, and only after he displayed a weapon in a threatening manner or actually fired at someone.  In that case I would shoot him until the weapon left his hand.

    Why on earth would you attack him?  Especially with no weapon?  Do you have a death wish?

    Parent

    Do you think that (none / 0) (#73)
    by lousy1 on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 01:18:31 PM EST
    TM would struggle and scream for 45 seconds yet not make getting control of the gun his primary focus.

    Where is the evidence that he attempted to grab and control George's wrist? Bruises? Why did GZ lose all his possesions in the debris field except the postulated drawn gun.

    Are you presuming that was Treyvon so aggressive that he would attack an armed assailant?

    Parent

    B-37 Was So Pro-Zimmerman ... (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by rcade on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 11:03:14 AM EST
    ... she said on CNN that she didn't have any desire for him to testify. The notion she might have learned something about the validity of his story under cross-examination did not occur to her at all.

    I know jurors are told not to consider a defendant's decision not to testify, but the trial's over. She can admit that she would've liked to have him take the stand.

    Juror B37 clearly identified much more strongly with Zimmerman than Martin.

    But I think another thing is going on here: She wants her answers to justify the verdict she reached.

    Parent

    Chicken or Egg? (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Cylinder on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 12:08:14 PM EST
    She wants her answers to justify the verdict she reached.

    ...or maybe the answers to those questions made her arrive at a verdict. How are the two different?

    This juror seems a bit sharper than her detractors. For instance, she seemed willing to entertain Manslaughter by Culpable Negligence. That charge was not available to her, was incompatible with the state's theory of the crime and (IMHO) had no evidence presented to support it. The lawful jury remedy isn't to convict of an unproven allegation to make up for this perceived deficiency. Of course, we cannot know if she would find proof beyond a reasonable doubt for that hypothetical charge, she just expressed her feeling toward it.

    Parent

    Agreed. (none / 0) (#122)
    by flcstud on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 09:49:44 AM EST
    Many on Twitter have bashed this juror and made the claim that her "racism" led to a bad verdict.  But most legal analysts seem to agree that she reached the right verdict.  I also agree with the manner in which she considered the evidence.  

    Parent
    Sorry! (none / 0) (#24)
    by Char Char Binks on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 12:06:42 AM EST
    My mistake!

    Parent
    Have not had a chance to watch, but heard... (none / 0) (#2)
    by Cashmere on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 07:58:34 PM EST
    something interesting from Joy Ann Reid (?  from the Grio?).  She stated that the juror used "Stand Your Ground" in her interview, and therefore she (juror B-37) was considering things she was not supposed to..

    But I ready the juror instructions and when discussing self defense, they clearly refer to the term "Stand Your Ground".  

    Even though O'Mara did not use "stand Your Ground" as part of Zimmerman's defense, there appears to be much confusion out there about how it has mpacted this trial.

    I think O'Mara stated that he may still seek immunity for self defense for Zimmerman yet.

    Apologies for discussing something a talking head was discussing..

    Reid is full of baloney (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 09:01:45 PM EST
    and should know better. The jury instructions specifically state if Zimmerman was not committing an unlawful act (which no one ever said he was) and he had a right to be in the place was attacked, he can stand his ground.

    If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

    It's the immunity statute he  didn't raise. They say the same thing. One is an affirmative defense, the other is immunity.

    Parent

    My take on it is... (none / 0) (#79)
    by bmaz on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 02:26:00 PM EST
    ...as I have said in other forums, that while the words "stand your ground" were in the self defense instruction, the juror B37 said specifically, upon being pinned down on the source of the verdict by Anderson Cooper, that it was ENTIRELY based on the 45 seconds or so up to and including the single critical shot and that the jury found that Martin was the aggressor and was on top of Zimmerman beating him such that Zimmerman was in fear of imminent serious bodily harm or death and that that was the only thing relevant to the verdict. Which means that any retreat/SYG language and/or concerns did NOT factor in the verdict, because they could not apply where retreat was physically impossible.

    You also have to look at the genesis of FL pattern self defense jury instruction and its form given by the court here. The SYG that was at issue all the way through this case, the main active part of the FL SYG law, was the immunity provisions and presumptions. That was never pled by, and ultimately was fully waived by the defense.

    Although the words stand your ground were substituted into the previous Florida pattern self defense instruction, they really did not necessarily change the nature or burden of Florida law, extant in case law, at the time, whatsoever; and certainly did not do so for the facts and verdict in this case. That is what both criminal defense attorneys, prosecutors and law professors in Florida all say. And from what I have seen, they are correct. In fact, the prosecutors in THIS case said that SYG was not the issue, and did so even after the verdict. I know it is the in little meme popular out there, frankly, I have no problem with reforming some of these laws. But saying this verdict was premised on SYG is total baloney.

    Parent

    Not so sure SYG didn't change things (none / 0) (#86)
    by Harold on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 02:51:09 PM EST
    Although the words stand your ground were substituted into the previous Florida pattern self defense instruction, they really did not necessarily change the nature or burden of Florida law, extant in case law, at the time, whatsoever....

    I've read elsewhere that prior to the SYG provision (which we should really make an effort to distinguish from the rest of the package of laws that included it) on the order of 33 prosecutions ... per year? were made in Florida holding that the defendant had a duty to retreat.

    As long as this has any ambiguity, it will be abused; it's particularly nasty in Massachusetts where the courts continually rewrote each new law to require you to retreat from your residence, even if that meant abandoning your child to the tender mercies of a home invader (real case in the early '80s that I followed in the Boston Globe).

    Parent

    no your post was fine (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 11:49:14 PM EST
    I had deleted the first comment in thread which referred to something on Piers Morgan and something to do with being gay. I am not interested in Rachel J. as a personality or in her claim to her 15 minutes to rehabilitate her image and pretend her testimony was anything other than it was. It was transcribed, that's the record we'll go by. Not what she now says she meant then.

    Parent
    That's just one of the reasons (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by melamineinNY on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 11:05:08 AM EST
    I appreciate your blog, Jeralyn - reinterpretations after the fact not allowed. : )

    Parent
    Not Enough Meat in Interview (none / 0) (#4)
    by RickyJim on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 08:09:09 PM EST
    Maybe one of the three jurors who went from guilty to not guilty will be able to explain what caused her to change her mind. B-37 was too vague to give any insight.  Was it a particular piece of evidence or a increased understanding of some sentence in the law?

    I was wondering if she is reluctant to talk much (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 08:26:25 PM EST
    about the other  jurors. But her own story does not have any decision points, so it is not very compelling to me.

    Parent
    I thought she said it was the juror (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Teresa on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 08:57:50 PM EST
    instructions. After they reviewed all the evidence, they read the instructions many times to see what law they could apply to the evidence.

    For instance, a couple wanted to charge him with something, she said, but when going over the law, there wasn't anything there they could charge him for.

    Parent

    she said what it was (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 09:03:26 PM EST
    self defense. Zimmerman was justified in his use of force which means he cannot be convicted for murder 2 or manslaughter. The juror wanted to find something to convict him on, but once they concluded the shooting was justified, there was nothing.

    Parent
    Sounds Too Simple (none / 0) (#17)
    by RickyJim on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 10:14:56 PM EST
    Second Degree Murder, Manslaughter and Justifiable Homicide are respectively on pages 6, 10 and 12 of the instructions.  I think something more was going on during those two days than plowing through 12 sparsely filled typewritten pages and shouting Eureka! when they got to page 12.  I hope the next juror to speak up fills us in.

    Parent
    first they reviewed the (none / 0) (#18)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 10:27:36 PM EST
    evidence like photos. Then they listed to tapes, over and over. Then they started on the law. That's what B37 said.

    Parent
    Still seems a little strange (none / 0) (#27)
    by DennisD on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 03:52:12 AM EST
    that you'd vote initially for manslaughter and then accept self-defense. Perhaps, as B37 says, a few jurors were looking to convict but were forced to come to terms with the lack of evidence to do so. Anyone know who the foreman and copious note were?

    Thanks.

    Parent

    I was a jury foreman (none / 0) (#34)
    by txantimedia on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 10:25:39 AM EST
    on a case where the initial vote was 4 for guilty and 2 for not guilty.  What changed the 2 not guilty votes was a discussion of the law as it applied to that case.  In fact, one juror was actually mad that he was forced to admit the defendant was guilty, but he was trapped by the law.

    Parent
    Jeralyn - Robert H comment? (none / 0) (#7)
    by Teresa on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 08:51:38 PM EST
    He was interviewed on CNN tonight about juror B-37. It wasn't on AC, so if it's off topic and you delete, I understand.

    He said that in their rating system, she was rated in the highest group as a "keeper" (my word). He had a PS beside her name, expecting a prosecution strike. I just wanted to let you know that this was a juror they definitely wanted, and why.

    He said the reason they rated her so highly is that she said she would give the most credibility to law enforcement.

    He said in a normal trial, this would never be a witness they wanted, but in this one, knowing that the law enforcement reports would back GZ's story, they wanted a pro-law enforcement juror on the jury.

    I can see why you think highly of him and why juror consultants are a necessary part of high profile trials, and I hate that it can't be for clients who can't afford it. He was on Erin Burnett if you want to check the transcript to see if I missed anything (or misunderstood anything). I just wanted to tell you since you've spoken of him a couple of times that I've seen.

    never a "juror" not witness. Sorry (none / 0) (#8)
    by Teresa on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 08:54:08 PM EST
    the court paid (none / 0) (#13)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 09:31:27 PM EST
    for two jury consultants for McVeigh. One was from Florida and one from New York. Other lawyers also generously gave of their time showing how to "life qualify" a jury. (Jurors in federal death penalty cases are "death qualified.)

    The court also paid for Robert Hirschhorn for Terry Nichols. Nichols was spared the death penalty and the media reported at that time that it was due to his pick of a particular woman juror who just bonded with Michael Tigar.

    I don't know whether state courts would pay for a jury expert in routine cases, but many do in death cases. As our Supreme Court has said, "Death is different."

    Consultans like Hirshhorn teach lawyers that jury selection is not about finding good jurors. There are no good and bad jurors. It's about identifying unfavorable jurors, and finding a way to challenge them for cause.  Hirschhorn calls it putting them in the "cause coffin."

    Then you find out what feelings and opinions the remaining jurors have about the key issues in the case. They get peremptory strikes.

    Every cause challenge is one less peremptory you have to exercise

    Parent

    That is what I have heard (none / 0) (#25)
    by MKS on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 01:18:01 AM EST
    Identify the jurors who will oppose you, try to DQ for cause, then use peremptory.

    And try not to expose favorable jurors because the other side will notice too and strike them.

    But the lore I was told by the old lions was to
    "condition" the jury--ask them a bunch of questions them what color a brown dog is.  Preview your case.  Argue your case.

    I have seen some heated discussions over lunch about which approach to use, and they are not usually complementary.....And the client of course loves the conditioning approach.

    Now, I can win the argument by citing Jeralyn Merritt as favoring the consultant approach!

    Parent

    what show was he on (none / 0) (#14)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 09:32:57 PM EST
    I want to watch when it replays later.

    Parent
    It was Erin Burnett (none / 0) (#15)
    by Teresa on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 09:51:00 PM EST
    I'm not sure what time it replays. The TV Guide and CNN's TV schedule hasn't been correct lately. They've stuck AC in her slot. I'll try to find out for you. I do know that it does replay, though.

    Parent
    IF their today's schedule is correct (none / 0) (#16)
    by Teresa on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 09:54:21 PM EST
    it comes on in 6 minutes. I think last night, though, they replayed AC with the juror again. It says it comes on again at 2:00am, I think midnight your time.

    Parent
    Here's the interview (none / 0) (#35)
    by txantimedia on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 10:29:55 AM EST
    thanks I watched it (none / 0) (#96)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 03:14:06 PM EST
    also you need to put your urls in html format or they skew the site and I have to delete your comments. Use the link button at the top of the comment box. Or at least get a tiny url.  You can't just post urls here.

    The interview was good for pointing out they looked for unfavorable jurors to strike, they weren't looking for favorable ones. He expected the state to strike B37. He didn't intentionally pick an all women jury, that's how it turned out based on their points of view.

    Most interesting part: They wanted pro law enforcement jurors who would understand the need to use your weapon. Which juror was the "safety officer?"

    Parent

    My apologies Jeralyn (none / 0) (#100)
    by txantimedia on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 03:21:07 PM EST
    I wasn't aware that the urls were messing up the site.  I'll use the widgets from now on.

    Parent
    The other jurors on B37 (none / 0) (#32)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 10:12:30 AM EST
    Maybe we can no stop using her to assert all of the things we want to believe occurred:

    ""The opinions of Juror B37, expressed on the Anderson Cooper show were her own, and not in any way representative of the jurors listed below," said the statement, signed by Jurors B51, B76, E6 and E40. The six-sentence statement did not specify what parts of the other juror's comments they disagreed with.

    Juror B37 said the actions of Zimmerman and 17-year-old Trayvon Martin both led to the teenager's fatal shooting last year, but that Zimmerman didn't actually break the law.

    The four other jurors said in their statement that Martin's death weighed on them.

    "Serving on this jury has been a highly emotional and physically draining experience for each of us," the statement said. "The death of a teenager weighed heavily on our hearts but in the end we did what the law required us to do."

    They also made a request for privacy. The court has not released the names of the six-woman jury, which included five whites and one woman who appeared to reporters to be Hispanic."

    Link

    The jurors are also scared (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by Jack203 on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 07:57:06 PM EST
    and do not want their names to be publicly released.

    I don't blame them.  I have read many threats to the jurors including ones from famous African americans (Roddy White).

    It is disgraceful and disgusting.

    Parent

    What's "disgraceful and disgusting"? (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by Yman on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 07:59:18 PM EST
    The threats to the jurors, or the false claim that Roddy White threatened the jurors?

    Parent
    This is acceptable and much better in your book? (none / 0) (#125)
    by Jack203 on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 10:24:01 PM EST
    Roddy White tells jurors in Zimmerman trial to `kill themselves'

    Parent
    Try reading what I actually wrote (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by Yman on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 06:18:11 AM EST
    It is not "acceptable" at all - I just found it incredible that an NFL player would publicly threaten the Zimmerman jurors, so I googled ot.  Like many of your other claims, it's a distortion, exaggeration, or outright falsehood.

    That was my point.

    Parent

    It WAS a threat. (none / 0) (#127)
    by Jack203 on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 09:54:20 AM EST
    Ask they jurors if they took it as one.

    Parent
    No, it wasn't (none / 0) (#128)
    by Yman on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 10:32:14 AM EST
    I know, because a "threat" is not suggesting that someone else go commit suicide.  It's basic English.  A "threat" is:

    noun
    1.
    a declaration of an intention or determination to inflict punishment, injury, etc., in retaliation for, or conditionally upon, some action or course; menace:

    That is not what Roddy White did.

    BTW - Why would I ask the jury?  There is absolutely no evidence they thought it was a threat.  More importantly, their subjective interpretation of a "threat" doesn't redefine the term.  If you think Roddy White made a "threat" with his tweet, call the police department.  They have stressful jobs.  I'm sure they could use a good laugh.

    Parent

    Notice how their statement (3.50 / 2) (#36)
    by txantimedia on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 10:32:33 AM EST
    refers to "the death of a teenager" not the death of a child?  The jury clearly didn't fall for the poor innocent child theme that the prosecution pounded on.

    Parent
    txantmedia (3.67 / 3) (#38)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 10:52:21 AM EST
    Two responses:

    1. The death of a child and the death of a teenager are equally horrific.

    2.  It's a joint statement probably written with the assistance of the judge and they probably put zero thought into the distinction between child and teenager for purposes of a six sentence response.

    3. You have no idea what the jury thought on that issue.

    4. Stop trying so hard to make every nuggest of detail fit into your preferred narrative.  That is the ridiculousness of most of these comments now.  

    5. Read 4 again.


    Parent
    I disagree (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by txantimedia on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 11:37:07 AM EST
    1) The death of a child is always more tragic than the death of a teenager.  Children are almost always innocent.  Teenagers often are not.  In the case of Trayvon, he contributed to his own demise.  I don't consider that tragic.  I consider it a waste.  He could have been anything he wanted to be, but he decided to be a street fighter and drug user.

    Bad choices often lead to bad results.

    1. Notice the probablys in your comment?  You're expressing an opinion, just as I am.

    2. Probably true.  Perhaps I shouldn't have used the adverb clearly?

    3. What do you think my preferred narrative is?


    Parent
    Really? A child's death is always more (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Anne on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 12:53:37 PM EST
    tragic than the death of a teenager?

    You don't have children, do you?  If you did, there is no way you'd be able to make that assessment.

    My daughters are 30 and 27, and I have a 7-month old grandson; I can't imagine that I would feel that the death of any one of them would be more or less tragic than the death of the other.

    Go ask someone with children this question: if you had to choose, which of your children's deaths would be more of a tragedy to you, the 10 year old or the 15 year old?

    You might want to be out of arm's reach when you ask it, because if you asked me that question, I'd be very tempted to slap you for asking such an offensively stupid question.

    Parent

    Please don't make assumptions about me (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by txantimedia on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 01:17:35 PM EST
    Anne, I have three daughters.  The youngest is 30.  If one of them died, I would be very sad.  Depending upon the circumstances, I might also find it tragic.

    If my youngest granddaughter (2) died, I would be a great deal sadder, because she is completely innocent and it would always be tragic.  My daughters' deaths could potentially not be (contributed to an accident, for example, that killed them, died in combat, attacked someone and got shot, etc.)

    People die for lots of different reasons.  The most tragic ones are the ones where the deceased did nothing to contribute to their own demise.

    And yeah, if one of my daughters committed a crime, I would turn them in and tell them to take responsibility for their actions.  Old fashioned, I know, but there's still a few of us left in this corrupt, immoral, decaying nation.

    Parent

    the judge would have nothing to do (none / 0) (#98)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 03:19:37 PM EST
    with it, why do you have to spin it.  Do you have a source for your "probably"?

    Parent
    I will be... (none / 0) (#45)
    by DebFrmHell on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 11:23:01 AM EST
    grateful when they (MSM) quit saying "unarmed."  IMO, the verdict of Not Guilty conflicts with that.

    Parent
    Don't hold your breath (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by txantimedia on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 11:38:06 AM EST
    Waiting for Holders (none / 0) (#40)
    by Wile ECoyote on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 10:57:16 AM EST
    statement on this.

    Subornation? (none / 0) (#44)
    by Semanticleo on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 11:17:14 AM EST
    B-37 said she was unaware of the controversy in the Public.

    Was she living in a cave?  Or was this statement intended to supplant the voir dire?  Surely they asked how familiar she was with the case.  DId she WANT to be on the Jury?  Her book deal was killed in vitro.  Was she the foreperson?  I wonder how well the book would have done with a guilty verdict.  Not as well as NG, I assume.

    Huh? (none / 0) (#46)
    by txantimedia on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 11:26:27 AM EST
    He was found not guilty.

    Not guilty (none / 0) (#49)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 11:41:27 AM EST
    means that a case could not be proven.  it does not explain the reasoning of the jury or the path taken to reach that verdict.  It does not mean that the person was not at fault.  it does not mean that race was not a factor.  it does not mean that a jury could turn around and award Zimmerman a civil suit loss because that jury believes that based on a preponderance of evidence or other standard that he is culpable.

    This is a site by a very good criminal defense attorney. But the downside of the perspective of this site and its leaning is just that.  This is a criminal defense attorney's view.

    If there is a civil case, most of the arguments made and relied on here are going to vanish.  the self defense burden of proof may flip.  Zimmerman may be forced to testify depending on whether federal charges are pending or possible, etc.

    In short, 70% of the stuff people are relying on will evaporate.  As it did in the OJ case and any other case where an acquittal is followed by a civil suit.

    So let's just not get too far ahead of ourselves in claiming that Zimmerman is some blameless saint who did nothing wrong.

    It's very possible that the hit to his pocketbook in the coming months and years could say otherwise.

    Parent

    Fair enough (none / 0) (#50)
    by Semanticleo on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 11:48:32 AM EST
    So let's just not get too far ahead of ourselves in claiming that Zimmerman is some blameless saint who did nothing wrong

    What terrible events would have followed Zimmerman's remaining in his car?  Nothing would have happened.

    I don't think it's fair to suggest that a criminal defense atty's position on this is awkward or slanted, The defense usually has fewer resources to conduct it's case.  The DA has quite a  purse to pursue.  I agree that the issue of the jurors is what's troubling.  Fla uses 12 for capital cases, but 6 seems less satisfactory for justice purposes.  The book bothers me the most about the juror's behavior.

    Parent

    Odd... (none / 0) (#52)
    by DebFrmHell on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 11:57:07 AM EST
    Mark O'Mara gave reasons for the jury to vote not guilty.  And they did by following the letter of the law.  IMO, he has the preponderance of evidence which is set at a much lower bar.  Above 50.0001%

    What I don't understand is how he can get immunity at this stage and I would like that further explained.  

    I must be dense but I don't get it.

    Parent

    Immunity comes from (none / 0) (#55)
    by Harold on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 12:13:06 PM EST
    Chapter 776.032 of the Florida Statutes.

    Since the law doesn't spell out how this works, as I understand it the courts use the same sort of hearing that a defendant can call for in a criminal trial, at the beginning of a civil trial there is an immunity determination by the judge.

    Parent

    SYG (none / 0) (#57)
    by rage of on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 12:22:42 PM EST
    MOM can request and get a SYG hearing on civil immunity.  If the judge grants it and grants GZ immunity there will be no civil suits.

    Parent
    You're a bit too sensitive (none / 0) (#64)
    by txantimedia on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 12:53:59 PM EST
    I wasn't even referring to Zimmerman.  If you look at the thread, I was referring to Abdul Abulbul Amir's link to a case where a black man shot a white teenager and was found not guilty.

    Parent
    This case followed a normal path (none / 0) (#72)
    by Harold on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 01:17:52 PM EST
    As I was told by my Virginia concealed carry class instructor, unless my face looked like, well, Zimmerman's at the scene, if I shot an unarmed man I could depend on being charged and having a difficult trial.  And that's what normally happens in these sorts of cases from my readings.

    Parent
    which is why I ask people to talk about (none / 0) (#102)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 03:23:38 PM EST
    this case and not others, unless some other case is directly related.

    Parent
    Well, true (none / 0) (#61)
    by jbindc on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 12:50:27 PM EST
    It IS different:

    Greece, N.Y. --
    The Greece man accused of fatally shooting a Hilton teenager in April took the stand in his own defense Tuesday.

    Roderick Scott, 42, of 58 Baneberry Way, is charged with first-degree manslaughter in the death of 17-year-old Christopher Cervini. Scott previously pleaded not guilty, saying he believed the teen and two others were breaking into cars in his neighborhood.

    Scott's trial in state Supreme Court began Nov. 30.

    Scott testified Tuesday that he heard voices outside his home in the early-morning hours of April 4.

    "I looked outside the front door to see what was going on," he said. "I saw three individuals walking out of my driveway

    This man was held w/o bail & indicted by a grand jury.

    Have you spent any time (none / 0) (#68)
    by vicndabx on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 01:11:28 PM EST
    in upstate NY?

    I bolded the differences (none / 0) (#69)
    by jbindc on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 01:15:34 PM EST
    Did you not see them?  I wish we could use color.....  :)

    I guess we don't recognize it when we agree (none / 0) (#70)
    by vicndabx on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 01:16:49 PM EST
    ?!?

    Parent
    Sorry (none / 0) (#74)
    by jbindc on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 01:24:55 PM EST
    Stuff hitting the fan here at work, and I am trying to stay below the radar by reading posts here.

    All good.  :)

    Parent

    Juror 37 new statement (none / 0) (#76)
    by Teresa on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 01:49:15 PM EST
    "My prayers are with all those who have the influence and power to modify the laws that left me with no verdict option other than 'not guilty' in order to remain within the instructions. No other family should be forced to endure what the Martin family has endured," she wrote.

    The juror, who was interviewed by CNN, said she will not grant other interviews and wants to get back to a normal life. "For reasons of my own, I needed to speak alone," she said.

    In her statement Wednesday, she added, "No other family should be forced to endure what the Martin family has endured."

    At one point, a literary agent said Juror B37 was planning to write a book about the trial, but she later decided not to.

    The juror clarified that in her statement Wednesday, saying "there was an agreement with a literary agent to explore the concept of a book which discussed the impact of sequestration on my perceptions of this serious case, while being compared to the perceptions of an attorney who was closely following the trial from outside the 'bubble.'"

    "The relationship with the agent ceased the moment I realized what had been occurring in the world during the weeks of my sequestration," she said.

    She added, "My prayers are with Trayvon's parents for their loss, as they have always been. I now wish for me and my family to recover from being selected for this jury and return to a normal life. God bless."

    It's a long article, so I don't think I copied too much.

    CNN Link


    Kudos to her. Mormon sense (none / 0) (#81)
    by oculus on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 02:36:55 PM EST
    Prevailed.

    Parent
    "Common" not "Mormon" (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by oculus on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 02:44:10 PM EST
    which makes NO sense!

    Parent
    But it was funny! (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by jbindc on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 02:46:39 PM EST
    I was wondering how you knew her religion!

    Parent
    Keyboard attachment required (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by vicndabx on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 03:02:17 PM EST
    go w/a Surface next time :)

    Parent
    On the book? I agree. (none / 0) (#95)
    by Teresa on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 03:05:04 PM EST
    Oculus, as a prosecutor, what law could be changed that would have affected this case? Following?

    O'Mara had a good explanation last night on Piers Morgan on traditional self-defense vs SYG (which he said is a troublesome law, though, in this case GZ had no chance to retreat he said, which is what I think he'll argue in an Immunity hearing).

    My first reaction to this statement, and during her interview when she said two wanted to find him guilty of something, was I agree. But then when I sit back and thing about it, what law would that be or that could be changed that would have enabled them to charge him with something the jury would have found him guilty of? (sorry for ending with "of")

    It seems like every attorney not in the FL legislature thinks SYG is a terrible law, but in this case, it didn't matter. Do you know of a law that he could have been charged with violating that might have resulted in a guilty verdict? Sorry for all the questions/commentary.

    Parent

    Once Zimmerman's statements were admitted (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 01:38:06 AM EST
    into evidence for the truth of the matter, and no expert challenged defendant's experts on ballistics, blood splatter, and the plausibility of Zimmerman's description of the position of the two when Zimmerman chose to pull the gun out of the holster and fire point Blake at Martin's chest, I cannot think of a criminal charge against Zimmerman that a state prosecutor's office could issue with a good faith belief it could convince a jury or court to return a guilty verdict. I have never practiced law in FL however.

    Parent
    Thank you, oculus (none / 0) (#123)
    by Teresa on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 06:00:25 PM EST
    I've read and seen attorneys say the state should have presented its on expert on self-defense. I don't know if it would have made a difference, but I'd think it would have been worth a try.

    Dr. Di Maio said the ballistics lady from FDLE did a great job. I think Dr. Bao (the ME who performed the autopsy) hurt the state, too.

    Parent

    I don't think so (none / 0) (#85)
    by Semanticleo on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 02:50:32 PM EST
    "At one point, a literary agent said Juror B37 was planning to write a book about the trial, but she later decided not to."

    You buy into her claim that she had no idea how controversial the case was to the Public?  

    And, she was outed in her attempts by a couple of well-placed tweets, not because she made the withdrawal out of decency.
    The publisher may have been concerned about jury subornation on her part, if she followed thrugh.


    Parent

    Do I buy into the claim (none / 0) (#121)
    by txantimedia on Thu Jul 18, 2013 at 08:57:12 AM EST
    that she had no idea how controversial the case was to the Public?

    Of course.  There's 330 million people in this country.  I'd bet more than half know absolutely nothing about this case.  Half of the rest know nothing other than what's on the news.

    Watch Jay Leno's streetwalking segment some time.  The country is filled with profoundly ignorant people.  Profoundly ignorant.

    Parent

    It's hard not to be cynical (none / 0) (#109)
    by txantimedia on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 04:13:18 PM EST
    when even attorneys can't properly describe the case.  It wasn't about SYG.  It was a simple self defense case.  Even if Florida had a duty to retreat written in to their laws, it wouldn't have mattered.  As the defense use of force expert testified, George had no other options left.  He had tried squirming to get away.  He had tried yelling for help.  Nothing was working, and he was continuing to get beaten.

    The case grows more frustrating by the day through all the misrepresentations and outright falsehoods that are passed off as wisdom.

    Hopefully the attorneys who actually work in courts are better informed than the bozos they find for TV.

    Juror B37 clearly didn't understand the law if she thinks that there's a way to change self defense law so George would have been guilty other than gutting it altogether.

    Parent

    That's my question, too. (none / 0) (#110)
    by Teresa on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 04:28:16 PM EST
    Juror B37 clearly didn't understand the law if she thinks that there's a way to change self defense law so George would have been guilty other than gutting it altogether.

    While I understand people wanting someone held accountable when a 17 year old is dead, in a normal self-defense case, what law is there that exists and could be changed that would have changed the outcome of this case.

    I can't think of any. And juror 37 is far from alone. I've seen plenty of lawyers say the same thing. But I've yet to see one say what that law would or should be. It's not SYG, even if that is a bad law.

    Parent

    And your point is? (none / 0) (#78)
    by Harold on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 02:22:43 PM EST
    I am too (although there it's deeply buried in a Safepacker that's then in my cloth briefcase).  I could be snarky and point out doctors kill 4 times as many people as "guns" do, but that's not quite the same thing and not why I carry in their offices.

    One thing to understand is that going out armed should be an all or nothing thing, outside of those locations you must visit and where it's illegal to carry, or otherwise ill advised---else you'd be carrying a rifle, wearing body armor, etc.---it's like a small first aid kit, something you can always have with you in case you need it.  Because you never know if and when you'll need it.

    Hmmm, that's probably legally safer as well, a prosecutor won't get far claiming you armed yourself for an incident if you can establish you're always armed when out, "it's nothing personal."

    You certainly have the legal right to be armed (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by shoephone on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 02:28:39 PM EST
    Just as I have the legal right to an opinion about people who feel the need to always be armed in public. I would prefer not to be anywhere near armed people. And to know that the guy sitting next to me at the doctor's office is armed does NOT make me feel safe. You can snark all you want about doctors killing people, but I have doctors in my family, and I can assure you, they take the oath "first do no harm" quite seriously. They save lives every day.

    Snark away.

    Parent

    please don't change the (none / 0) (#104)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 03:28:44 PM EST
    the topic of the thread to gun rights. Please review our comment rules for this case. This thread is about juror B37's interview.

    Parent
    huh (none / 0) (#106)
    by Semanticleo on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 03:35:47 PM EST
    Wow.  Those discussion parameters are narrow.  You deleted the tweet which hearkened back to #85.  All this springs from the interview.

    Parent
    see my response further down in the thread (none / 0) (#119)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 09:25:24 PM EST