The Jurors Speak

[TalkLeft]

It was NBC news, not ABC news that reported it and I wrote a long post about it mentioning Chico at the time, linking to the video.

It had to do with the media handout at the arrest of GZ's booking photo from the Orange County 2005 case.

Crump found out about Zimmerman's arrest from a female reporter around March 8, 2012. WFTV has his presser still online.  Since the first comment is dated March 10, 2012, that's probably the day it was posted online. If you look at the court records for the case, the first time the media requested the documents in the case was 3/12/12, which seems to be after Crump mentioned it. And that person only bought 1 page. The first person to order and pay for a copy of the file was on 3/22/12, JOHN F. COUWELS, and on 3/30, Reuters reporter Barbara Liston bought some documents, and LAURA L. KURINSKY bought some. At this presser, a female reporter shows him and the Martins a photo of GZ, and all three express surprise (which seems genuine) and say it's the first time they've seen a picture of him. If that's the 2005 booking photo, it seems to me the media got it from law enforcement or the Orange County Sheriff's office or the DA's office  rather than the court.

The court records are here, you have to type in GZ's name and then click on both criminal felony and criminal misdemeanor to come up with both cases.

Michael Isikoff is the reporter for NBC who said Chico was the chief prosecutor on the case. I wonder if he was the prosecuctor on the misdemeanor part rather than the felony.
He was only admitted in 2004. I don't know that he would have handled felony prosecutions for the DA by 2005. GZ's felony complaint was in July 2005. It was transferred to the misdemeanor division in August, 2005. Subpoenas for the misdemeanor trial went out on 11/14/05.  The trial was called off when they made a deal. He was approved for pre-trial diversion in 12/2005. The court documents show a different DA, Wayne Wooten, signed the nolle prosequi on  7/28/06, and I'd bet Chico was gone by then.

Chico left the DA's office in 2006 -- his first entry as a defense counsel I could find searching here was in August, 2006.

08/07/2006           Notice of Appearance
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE FILED DAVID M. CHICO
Case No. 2004-CF-004473-A-O

GZ's pre-trial diversion was extended by 2 months so he could complete community service. At the bond hearing, it was Shelley and GZ's father who mentioned anger management, and Bernie implied he never completed it. The records I have don't show a requirement for anger management. They show his failure to complete community service and they say that as soon as he completes it, supervision will be ended, ahead of the 2 month extension. Has anyone seen a copy of a document specifying anger management?

[TalkLeft]

someone denigrated her status to "orderly." I deleted it because I haven't seen evidence of that. She said during voir dire she has a CN license (sp?) and had to get a job within a certain period of time or it would not renew. I don't know what a CN license is but the defense seemed to know, and I doubt that anyone needs a license to be an orderly (although if I'm wrong feel free to correct me.)

[Cylinder]

someone denigrated her status to "orderly." I deleted it because I haven't seen evidence of that. She said during voir dire she has a CN license (sp?) and had to get a job within a certain period of time or it would not renew. I don't know what a CN license is but the defense seemed to know, and I doubt that anyone needs a license to be an orderly (although if I'm wrong feel free to correct me.)

A certified nursing assistant (CNA) is trained and licensed to look after the basic physical needs of a patient. They assist patient hygiene, do bed checks, move patients, assist taking routine vitals (they cannot take critical or therapeutic vitals, such as those ordered by a doctor to calculate dosing or where a doctor order is triggered by vital), assist feeding and they can assist a patient in taking medication but they can never dose or administer it.

In long-term care facilities, the CNA is the primary staff contact for everyday needs. The CNAs will assist a team of LPNs that will administer medication, take routine vitals and do sterile procedure such as changing dressings or manipulating medical devices. Each team will have an RN supervisor who is the only nurse with the authority to order or dose medication, do medical assessments, take critical vitals or interpret physician orders.

Orderlies are non-licensed hospital employees whose main function is moving patients. If I was in a large hospital and a low risk patient, an orderly might show up with the wheelchair and take me for a ride to radiology. If I were a slip/fall risk, they would probably be assisted by a CNA or LPN to get me in the wheelchair and the orderly would push me down the hall.

[who007]

...
GZ's pre-trial diversion was extended by 2 months so he could complete community service. At the bond hearing, it was Shelley and GZ's father who mentioned anger management, and Bernie implied he never completed it. The records I have don't show a requirement for anger management. They show his failure to complete community service and they say that as soon as he completes it, supervision will be ended, ahead of the 2 month extension. Has anyone seen a copy of a document specifying anger management?

Yes, Shellie did mention the anger management at the Bond hearing, but also his lawyer at the time said it was anger management:
It's noted in this CNN article, and a CNN Soledad O'Brian interview with Zahra Umansky, his lawyer for the 2005 case stating it as such.

"Zahra Umansky, who  represented Zimmerman after a 2005 arrest on an assault charge, said the  severity of the count came as a surprise to many lawyers. "We, as a legal community, thought that the charge would be only manslaughter," Umansky told CNN's "Starting Point."
 
 In the 2005 case, Zimmerman entered a pre-trial diversion program and took an anger-management class, Umansky said."
 
 Experts argue appropriateness of murder charge in Martin case - CNN.com

[nomatter_nevermind]

It was NBC news, not ABC news

Right. Sorry for the error.

[TalkLeft]

Sniping comments between commenters with name-calling and accusations deleted. Rather than respond please just report the objectionable comment and let me deal with it.

People are entitled to express their opinions and interpretations of what juror B29 said on ABC. Just be clear to express it as your opinion and not fact.

[nomatter_nevermind]

MADDY: I was the juror that was going to give him the hung jury. Oh, I was. I fought to the end.

It seems she is admitting she had an agenda going in and apparently had far more awareness of the case and exposure to the biased media than she admitted to during screening.

Video, 1:23-39

Robin Roberts: Tell us more about the emotion, during those nine hours, from the initial vote of murder, second degree, to not guilty. What was going on in your mind, your heart?   
B-29: I was the juror that was gonna give him the hung jury. Oh, I was. I fought to the end.

[nomatter_nevermind]

Below are what I think are B-29's most interesting quotes from the Nightline segment (7/25/13). I've included one case of Robin Roberts quoting B-29 indirectly.

1:55

B-29: I stand by the decision because of the law.

2:03

RR: [B-29] calls herself 'a black Hispanic'.

I wonder why we haven't yet heard B-29 say this in her own voice.

I think 'white Hispanic' and 'black Hispanic' are meaningful categories. The U.S. Census Bureau treats 'Hispanic' as an 'ethnic' category that cuts across 'race'. It wasn't just Anglo colonies that imported African slaves, so many 'Hispanics' have as much African ancestry as any U.S. born 'African-American'.

I know the media usually treat black/white/Hispanic as disjoint 'racial' categories. I don't see any reason for that to be dispositive.

2:15

B-29: I feel that I was forcibly included in Trayvon Martin's death.

4:04-29

B-29: The way [B-37] made a lot of us sound, we [unintelligible] by color. And that's not what I do.
RR: And that was something that a lot of people from the outside thought must have been the discussion in the deliberations, about race, about color. But that wasn't the case?
B-29: It was not the case.

I don't know what statement by B-37 might be referred to by B-29. B-37 also said race was not discussed in the deliberations (video, 7:47-8:19).

4:41-58

B-29: My first vote was second degree murder.
RR: How did you go from, in nine hours, from feeling he was guilty of second degree murder, to not guilty?
B-29: In between the nine hours, it was hard. A lot of us had wanted to find something bad, something that we could connect to the law.

The deliberations lasted over 16 hours, rounded to 16 by a voice-over at 6:48. I'm not clear on what the 'nine hours' refers to, but I think it might be the time between the first formal vote and agreement on the verdict.

5:09-35

B-29: But as the law was read to me, if you have no proof that he killed him intentionally, you can't find, you can't say he's guilty.
RR: What was going on in your mind, your heart?   
B-29: I was the juror that was gonna give him the hung jury. Oh, I was. I fought to the end.
RR: Do you have regrets that you didn't?
B-29: Kind of. I mean, I'm the only minority, and I felt like I let a lot of people down.

The elements of manslaughter are set forth on p. 10 of the jury instructions.

I think B-29 misstated the law. That might be because she did not understand the instruction. I think it's also possible that B-29 understood the law correctly, but failed to relay it accurately in the pressure of the unfamiliar interview situation.

Roberts didn't ask any follow-up questions to clear this up, or if she did it was not shown, at this time or in the next day's GMA segment. 

6:28

B-29: I've never, really really paid mind, to whose voice it was. Because, the evidence shows that, people's voices change when you're in extreme motion [sic].

6:56-7:18

RR: When you all sent that note, to the judge, asking for an explanation on manslaughter, what was that about?
B-29: What we were trying to figure out was, manslaughter, in order to be charged, we had to prove that when he left home, he said 'I'm gonna go kill Trayvon Martin'.

Again, we don't hear any follow-up questions to clarify this. Why wasn't this specific question put to the court?

I think B-37 gave Anderson Cooper a puzzling response to a simlar question, also without follow-up.

7:46-8:04

B-29: I literally fell on my knees . . . I was screaming and crying. . . . I kept saying to myself, 'I feel like I killed him.' And, I feel that if, maybe if they would put the law, and, a lot of people who would read it, they would understand, the choices that they gave us.

According to a voice-over, this was B-29's reaction to 'negative news reports about their verdict' (7:39).

8:31-43

RR: What would you, what would you like to say to Trayvon's parents?
B-29: I would like to apologize, because, I feel like I let them down.

[unitron]

MADDY: I was the juror that was going to give him the hung jury. Oh, I was. I fought to the end.

It seems she is admitting she had an agenda going in and apparently had far more awareness of the case and exposure to the biased media than she admitted to during screening.

Did she say that's the way she was at the start of the trial, before anybody presented anything, or the way she was after the state presented its case, but before deliberations started?

In other words, could the agenda have been in response to the state's case, and not something she brought with her before they ever picked her for the jury?

[nomatter_nevermind]

MADDY: I was the juror that was going to give him the hung jury. Oh, I was. I fought to the end.

It seems she is admitting she had an agenda going in and apparently had far more awareness of the case and exposure to the biased media than she admitted to during screening.

Did she say that's the way she was at the start of the trial, before anybody presented anything, or the way she was after the state presented its case, but before deliberations started?

During the last 9 hours of deliberations (Q&A).

[SuzieTampa]

My opinion, for what it's worth: I agree with MOM that B-29 was a good juror in the sense that she made her decision based on evidence and the law. I don't see anything wrong with a juror who has 8 kids and watches reality TV shows. Neither indicates low intelligence.

If I were a juror or anyone else involved in this case, I would definitely seek help from a lawyer. I think it's terrible for the jurors and journalism for biased journalists to ask a bunch of leading questions. Also, when people are nervous, who knows what they'll blurt out. I'm thinking now about B-29's statement that she hurts as much as Sybrina Fulton. That's crazily insensitive. But there's a good chance she said that without thinking, and didn't really mean it that way. Again, this is just my opinion because I know only what she said.

Let's not make any more jokes about whether she can read or not. She would have to be able to read and write to be a CNA.

I was a reporter in FL 1988-1999. We never called anyone a white Hispanic unless we were doing a history piece about how light-skinned Hispanics were segregated from black Hispanics at times. I never heard anyone call themselves a white Hispanic unless they were talking about the Census and other forms that consider Hispanic an ethnicity. (Of course, in reality, there's only the human race. The majority of scientists no longer believe that "white" and "black" are actually separate races. They are really ethnicities, too.) Black Hispanics are more likely to mention being black, in my experience. When people say they are Puerto Rican or Dominican, it's usually understood that they are mixed race. Of course, many people in Latin America have indigenous (or Indian) heritage, too. The majority of African-Americans have white "blood." And I have 1+ percent Neanderthal genes, like many whites. This may have been more than you wanted to read.

 

[nomatter_nevermind]

I agree with MOM that B-29 was a good juror in the sense that she made her decision based on evidence and the law.

To me it is unclear that B-29 understood the law. How do you know that she did?

I think her decision was correct, based on my understanding of the evidence and the law. But that's a different question.

[SuzieTampa]

I think her decision was correct, based on my understanding of the evidence and the law. But that's a different question.

Good point. I'll at least give her credit for making a decision based on what she thought was the law, as opposed to her emotions.

[RickyJim]

Looks like no more B29 for a while.  I still can't figure out why she felt the need to get a lawyer and come forward to show her face and her understanding of the law.

STATEMENT

Our law firm represents the juror known as B29 who deliberated along with five other jurors in the George Zimmerman trial, Sanford, Florida.  Attorney David Chico is her attorney. Our client first appeared on ABC news to tell her story as a first step toward healing from the impact of deliberating to reach a verdict in the trial against George Zimmerman.

Our client is not giving additional interviews at this time and would appreciate respect for privacy as she returns to a normal life with her family. This web page will be updated periodically.

Specific inquiries may be directed to our media relations department by filling out the contact form below or by contacting David Acosta at 407-933-7703, Ext. 1006.

Press Release 7-27-2013

[DiwataMan]

Just got done reading your post:

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2013/7/27/2271/32917/crimenews/Weekend-George-Zimmerman-Thread

For some reason I can't log in there to comment over there. I wish these jurors would speak out on their own like on a blog or something without the media and lawyers and be receptive to questions from us. It's amazing how many people on the "Martin" side of things have lawyered up, even Crump, lol. I find B29 perplexing though and I think the questions about Chico are valid. How in the heck did she end up with the guy involved in George's old case? Sure it could just be wild coincidence but that doesn't diminish the validity of the question. And why does she need a lawyer anyway? But more importantly I wish she would clarify some things. Yes, I realize in the end she followed the law but she confuses me, to me she comes off as trying to have it both ways or like playing like some sort of victim of it all "forced" if you will to go not guilty. I mean it's so bizarre @1:45 "I don't know if I was bullied, I trust god I wasn't bullied but..." huh?  What kind of an answer is that? I don't know, I'll have to look more into this all later, that was just some quick thoughts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQb-_BebVHA#at=106