Author Topic: The Jurors Speak  (Read 11686 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Redbrow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 332
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: The Jurors Speak
« Reply #15 on: July 25, 2013, 11:50:51 AM »
She is not photo shy.

Maybe she is going to rail against Zimmerman and the other jurors. No need to protect your identity if you are ant-Zimmerman.

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: The Jurors Speak
« Reply #16 on: July 25, 2013, 12:55:38 PM »
George Zimmerman Juror Says He 'Got Away With Murder' - ABC News

"I was the juror that was going to give them the hung jury. I fought to the end," she said. ...

When asked by Roberts whether the case should have gone to trial, Maddy (Juror B29) said, "I don't think so."

"I felt like this was a publicity stunt. This whole court service thing to me was publicity," she said.


Edit to add the "publicity stunt" quote.
« Last Edit: July 25, 2013, 01:01:45 PM by cboldt »

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1580
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: The Jurors Speak
« Reply #17 on: July 25, 2013, 01:50:32 PM »
Quote
"That's where I felt confused, where if a person kills someone, then you get charged for it," Maddy said. "But as the law was read to me, if you have no proof that he killed him intentionally, you can't say he's guilty."
I am not sure what she means by "intentionally".  In the definition of manslaughter, the instructions state,
"2. George Zimmerman intentionally committed an act or acts that caused the death of Trayvon Martin".
I thought that all the jurors believed 2. was established but saw that the excusable homicide and justifiable homicide parts of the jury instructions overrode the manslaughter elements in this particular case.  I have a hunch that watching the program won't explain anything further.

So why does she need a lawyer?  What excuse does the jury consultant have for not striking her?

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: The Jurors Speak
« Reply #18 on: July 25, 2013, 02:15:09 PM »
I am not sure what she means by "intentionally".  In the definition of manslaughter, the instructions state,
"2. George Zimmerman intentionally committed an act or acts that caused the death of Trayvon Martin".
I thought that all the jurors believed 2. was established but saw that the excusable homicide and justifiable homicide parts of the jury instructions overrode the manslaughter elements in this particular case.  I have a hunch that watching the program won't explain anything further.

So why does she need a lawyer?  What excuse does the jury consultant have for not striking her?

I suspect she was explaining why the evidence didn't support the murder charge, which is what she wanted to find.

Maybe having a lawyer along is sort of like "jewelry," an accessory that everybody else associated with this case has, so she has one too.

As for Hirschhorn's failure, my hunch is that mind reading and future predicting will never be reliable.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: The Jurors Speak
« Reply #19 on: July 25, 2013, 02:50:36 PM »
What excuse does the jury consultant have for not striking her?

Did you say she was an obvious defense strike before today?

If the defense got 5 of 6 right, I think they did quite well.

ETA: If the only reason for the defense to strike B-29 was her ethnicity, that isn't legal.
« Last Edit: July 25, 2013, 02:55:50 PM by nomatter_nevermind »

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: The Jurors Speak
« Reply #20 on: July 25, 2013, 03:00:32 PM »
If the defense got 5 of 6 right, I think they did quite well.

Using "proof of the pudding is in the eating," seems the consultant did fine.  The jury was unanimous.

Offline jjr495

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 118
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: The Jurors Speak
« Reply #21 on: July 25, 2013, 03:22:42 PM »
If the only reason for the defense to strike B-29 was her ethnicity, that isn't legal.
I think Hirschhorn was most worried about the inevitable Batson challenge of the two black females that they really didn't want on the jury. Better to leave B-29 on the jury so as not to establish a discriminatory pattern before those two.

I am not surprised that we see B29's face. O'Mara was having a hard time believing that jury wouldn't be a hardship for a mother of eight with a job. Remember that she never watches news and loves reality TV, especially Jersey Housewives.

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1580
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: The Jurors Speak
« Reply #22 on: July 25, 2013, 03:25:37 PM »
Would having 8 kids, a low paying job and watching mostly reality TV shows raise any red flags for a defense jury consultant?  I would think that being able to understand the law would be my first concern in picking jurors for a case where I think the law is on my side.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: The Jurors Speak
« Reply #23 on: July 25, 2013, 04:09:03 PM »
Would having 8 kids, a low paying job and watching mostly reality TV shows raise any red flags for a defense jury consultant?

My question was:
Quote
Did you say she was an obvious defense strike before today?

Is this your way of saying 'no'?

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: The Jurors Speak
« Reply #24 on: July 25, 2013, 04:49:09 PM »
I caught the few minutes of teaser at 6:30 on ABC. B-29 said something to the effect that she was hurting as much as Sybrina Fulton. The rest was what we've already heard. Her bottom line is that she feels GZ is a murderer before God, but she couldn't find him guilty under the law. She still seems proud of being the last holdout, who 'fought to the end'.

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: The Jurors Speak
« Reply #25 on: July 25, 2013, 05:04:57 PM »
I caught the few minutes of teaser at 6:30 on ABC. B-29 said something to the effect that she was hurting as much as Sybrina Fulton. The rest was what we've already heard. Her bottom line is that she feels GZ is a murderer before God, but she couldn't find him guilty under the law. She still seems proud of being the last holdout, who 'fought to the end'.

And, as far as we know, was eventually persuaded with logic and reason.  She was likely given ample opportunity to explain how she arrived at her (murder or manslaughter) conclusion, and was unable to do so.

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1580
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: The Jurors Speak
« Reply #26 on: July 25, 2013, 05:21:05 PM »
Did you say she was an obvious defense strike before today?

If the defense got 5 of 6 right, I think they did quite well.

ETA: If the only reason for the defense to strike B-29 was her ethnicity, that isn't legal.
i did not comment on any of the jurors except for the one that asked O'Mara why not have professional panels.  I regard this whole business of hiring consultants to see if you can stack a jury in your favor an abomination.  I have contempt for a system that would even contemplate using B-29 as a juror in a legal case.  I have always been one the first to be stuck during voir dire so have never been on a jury.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: The Jurors Speak
« Reply #27 on: July 25, 2013, 05:39:46 PM »
Jeff Weiner, Orlando Sentinel, 7/25/13
Quote
[F]amily attorney Ben Crump reacts to B29 interview: "If members of the jury thought the instructions were confusing, which caused them to give the wrong verdict, then they should join the efforts to amend these ‘stand your ground’ laws."

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1580
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: The Jurors Speak
« Reply #28 on: July 25, 2013, 05:55:56 PM »
Jeff Weiner, Orlando Sentinel, 7/25/13
Quote
[F]amily attorney Ben Crump reacts to B29 interview: "If members of the jury thought the instructions were confusing, which caused them to give the wrong verdict, then they should join the efforts to amend these ‘stand your ground’ laws."
A non sequitur if ever there was one.  Amending the 'stand your ground' laws will lead to clear jury instructions?  ???

Offline ding7777

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 806
  • Rate Post +19/-59
Re: The Jurors Speak
« Reply #29 on: July 26, 2013, 12:17:21 AM »
[F]amily attorney Ben Crump reacts to B29 interview: "If members of the jury thought the instructions were confusing, which caused them to give the wrong verdict, then they should join the efforts to amend these ‘stand your ground’ laws.

Confusing jury instructions does not necessarily equal wrong verdict

 

Site Meter
click
tracking