TalkLeft Discussion Forums

George Zimmerman Trial Coverage => Verdict Watch and Reactions => Topic started by: nomatter_nevermind on July 17, 2013, 05:10:46 AM

Title: The Jurors Speak
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 17, 2013, 05:10:46 AM
We've been discussing B-37's on/off book deal quest and Anderson Cooper interview on other threads. I think this topic needs its own thread.

WTVF, 7/17/13 (http://www.wftv.com/news/news/local/4-zimmerman-trial-jurors-release-statement/nYsbK/)
Quote
Four jurors from the George Zimmerman murder trial released a joint statement asking for privacy Tuesday night [7/16].

The statement said serving on the jury had been a highly emotional and physically draining experience for each of the jurors.

In the joint statement, the jurors said, "the death of a teenager weighed heavily on our hearts, but in the end we did what the law required us to do."

In the letter, the jurors said the opinions of Juror B37 were her own and not representative of the entire jury.

The article does not identify the 4 jurors, even by number.
Title: Re: The Jurors Speak
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 17, 2013, 05:44:34 AM
Jeff Weiner (Orlando Sentinel) tweeted that the 4 did not include B-29, the 'minority juror'.
Title: Re: The Jurors Speak
Post by: RickyJim on July 17, 2013, 08:19:47 AM
Here is the pdf of the letter (http://media.cmgdigital.com/shared/news/documents/2013/07/16/Jurors_Statement.pdf).  It is interesting that they went to court to have it released.
Title: Re: The Jurors Speak
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 17, 2013, 08:44:19 AM
It is interesting that they went to court to have it released.

To me it's seems like the best way to release a message while protecting their privacy.
Title: Re: The Jurors Speak
Post by: Evil Chinchilla on July 17, 2013, 10:18:54 AM
Jeff Weiner (Orlando Sentinel) tweeted that the 4 did not include B-29, the 'minority juror'.

How does he know? Did he say?

And if you eliminate B-37 and B-29, that IDs the four that spoke out. 
Title: Re: The Jurors Speak
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 17, 2013, 10:24:53 AM
There's a list of the 4 signing jurors in the pdf linked by RJ.

B-1, B-76, E-6, E-40.
Title: Re: The Jurors Speak
Post by: TalkLeft on July 18, 2013, 01:53:21 AM
Alternate E-54 now speaking out for acquittal (http://www.talkleft.com/story/2013/7/18/3849/89859)

interview here (http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/on-the-record/index.html)
Title: Re: The Jurors Speak
Post by: RickyJim on July 18, 2013, 09:34:50 AM
Best Article (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2013/07/zimmerman_trial_juror_b37_why_did_prosecutors_let_her_on_the_trayvon_martin.html) so far on juror B-37.
Title: Re: The Jurors Speak
Post by: txantimedia on July 18, 2013, 09:56:13 AM
Best Article (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2013/07/zimmerman_trial_juror_b37_why_did_prosecutors_let_her_on_the_trayvon_martin.html) so far on juror B-37.
The defense's jury consultant had her marked as PS (Prosecution Strike).  You'd have to ask the prosecutors why they didn't strike her.  Perhaps, as the article points out, there were other potential jurors they were more concerned about.
Title: Re: The Jurors Speak
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 18, 2013, 10:01:26 AM
Perhaps, as the article points out, there were other potential jurors they were more concerned about.

Neither side used all of their peremptories. (Thread) (http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2614.msg116928.html#msg116928)

Title: Re: The Jurors Speak
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 18, 2013, 10:58:29 AM
Best Article (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2013/07/zimmerman_trial_juror_b37_why_did_prosecutors_let_her_on_the_trayvon_martin.html) so far on juror B-37.

I disagree.

I believe it is a column, not really an article.

I don't think it is at all good.

I don't think it is about B-37. I think it's about some pet theory of the writer's that she tried and failed to shoehorn B-37 into.

The name of Dahlia Lithwik is familiar. I've been seeing it for ages. I don't read her. My vague recollection is [insult deleted.]
Title: Re: The Jurors Speak
Post by: annoyedbeyond on July 19, 2013, 05:38:38 PM
OK, I'll try to paraphrase that inoffensively. My recollection it that she is a columnist I never felt was worth the time to read.

Did I have a post deleted here for some reason? I think it was just mentioning that Dahlia Lithwik got her JD at Stanford, so at least she's got a pedigree to write about legal matters.

Not really sure why that would be deleted, especially since NM has 2 posts about not thinking she's worth the time to read.

Odd.
Title: Re: The Jurors Speak
Post by: TalkLeft on July 20, 2013, 08:19:08 PM
Dahlia Lathwick is an extremely knowledgable and respected reporter on Supreme Court and other issues. I don't think it's appropriate to paste her bio here, or any personal details. Nor do I want uninformed criticism of her here. If you don't know who she is, google her. If you disagree with her conclusions about something, say so and why. Don't insult her credentials or personally insult her.
Title: Re: The Jurors Speak
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 25, 2013, 08:59:53 AM
ABC (https://twitter.com/GMA) claiming Juror B-29 interview.

Quote
Zimmerman Trial's Juror 29 [sic] speaks out: Catch Robin Roberts' EXCLUSIVE on ABC World News & Nightline, w/ the full interview tomorrow [7/26/13] on GMA [Good Morning America].

Title: Re: The Jurors Speak
Post by: RickyJim on July 25, 2013, 09:21:28 AM
ABC claiming Juror B-29 interview.
 (https://twitter.com/GMA)
She is not photo shy (http://www.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment/blogs/tv-guy/os-george-zimmerman-juror-b29-talks-to-abc-20130725,0,4126847.post).
Title: Re: The Jurors Speak
Post by: Redbrow on July 25, 2013, 11:50:51 AM
She is not photo shy (http://www.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment/blogs/tv-guy/os-george-zimmerman-juror-b29-talks-to-abc-20130725,0,4126847.post).

Maybe she is going to rail against Zimmerman and the other jurors. No need to protect your identity if you are ant-Zimmerman.
Title: Re: The Jurors Speak
Post by: cboldt on July 25, 2013, 12:55:38 PM
George Zimmerman Juror Says He 'Got Away With Murder' (http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmerman-juror-murder/story?id=19770659) - 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.
Title: Re: The Jurors Speak
Post by: RickyJim 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?
Title: Re: The Jurors Speak
Post by: cboldt 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.
Title: Re: The Jurors Speak
Post by: nomatter_nevermind 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.
Title: Re: The Jurors Speak
Post by: cboldt 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.
Title: Re: The Jurors Speak
Post by: jjr495 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.
Title: Re: The Jurors Speak
Post by: RickyJim 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.
Title: Re: The Jurors Speak
Post by: nomatter_nevermind 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'?
Title: Re: The Jurors Speak
Post by: nomatter_nevermind 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'.
Title: Re: The Jurors Speak
Post by: cboldt 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.
Title: Re: The Jurors Speak
Post by: RickyJim 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.
Title: Re: The Jurors Speak
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 25, 2013, 05:39:46 PM
Jeff Weiner, (http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1rlio37) 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."
Title: Re: The Jurors Speak
Post by: RickyJim on July 25, 2013, 05:55:56 PM
Jeff Weiner, (http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1rlio37) 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?  ???
Title: Re: The Jurors Speak
Post by: ding7777 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
Title: Re: The Jurors Speak
Post by: RickyJim on July 26, 2013, 07:52:08 AM
Is this the entire interview (http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/george-zimmerman-juror-29-interview-gma-vote-degree-19779607)?  Much, much shorter than the B37 one and almost worthless, IMHO. 
Title: Re: The Jurors Speak
Post by: Redbrow on July 26, 2013, 02:49:09 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Jurors Speak
Post by: Cylinder on July 26, 2013, 02:53:42 PM
O'Mara Law Blog touts B-29 as "model juror" (http://omaralawblog.com/)

Quote
We don’t expect jurors to be heartless people. Every murder case starts with someone who has had their life taken, someone who leaves behind grieving loved-ones. Every loss of life is a tragedy, and we don’t ask jurors to be immune to that. But we do ask jurors not to reach their verdicts based on what their hearts tell them; for the verdict, a juror must set aside emotions and follow the law. Based on her comments, Juror B-29 accepted a tremendous burden, set her feelings aside, and cast a verdict based the evidence presented in court and on the law she was provided.

Any juror that follows Juror B-29’s process will deliver a fair and just verdict.
Title: Re: The Jurors Speak
Post by: Evil Chinchilla on July 26, 2013, 03:19:14 PM
"That's the way the law was read to me."  If she cannot read for herself she should have admitted so during selection, or maybe she was too focused on being the stealth juror who delivered the guilty verdict or at least a hung jury as she admitted.
Didn't Nelson read the jury instructions in the courtroom to the entire jury before sending them to deliberate?

Since she works in an Alzhimer's facility, I would hope she can read for the sake of the patients under her care.

Or maybe the instructions were in cursive.  ::)
Title: Re: The Jurors Speak
Post by: Evil Chinchilla on July 26, 2013, 03:28:27 PM
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.

I'm rather disturbed by this juror's comments, but I don't know that they necessarily establish she was exposed to the media bias or had an agenda going in.

She could have developed that attitude quoted above as a result of the evidence presented in court. Even though most of us thought the defense undid the state's evidence on cross-examination, she might've bought it.
Title: Re: The Jurors Speak
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 26, 2013, 04:03:53 PM
Or maybe the instructions were in cursive.  ::)

 ;D   ;D
Title: Re: The Jurors Speak
Post by: Redbrow on July 26, 2013, 04:47:44 PM
Redbrow is making things up, as usual.
What did I make up now or ever. Proof now, liar.
Title: Re: The Jurors Speak
Post by: Redbrow on July 26, 2013, 05:05:20 PM
And what an amazing coincidence that this juror chose the prosecutor for Zimmerman's assault case as her lawyer. Why does an ex juror need a lawyer anyway?  Something is afoot. Go ahead and criticize me again now.
Title: Re: The Jurors Speak
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 26, 2013, 05:47:33 PM
Is this the entire interview (http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/george-zimmerman-juror-29-interview-gma-vote-degree-19779607)?

Other parts were shown on Nightline (http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/george-zimmerman-juror-stands-decision-19777201) last night. Also, Robin Roberts quoted B-29 indirectly on some points, presumably reflecting unaired parts of the interview.

I watched the interview on GMA this morning, and I think what I saw is the same as what you linked. After that, and commentary by 'legal analysts', they moved on to another story. They didn't say there was more of the interview to come. I didn't watch the rest of the episode.

The 'legal analysts' didn't have a word to say about B-29's apparent misunderstanding of the law.
Title: Re: The Jurors Speak
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 26, 2013, 06:06:13 PM
Other parts were shown on Nightline (http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/george-zimmerman-juror-stands-decision-19777201) last night.

Sorry, wrong link. This is the Nightline segment. (http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/video/george-zimmerman-juror-hearts-felt-guilty-19778568)
Title: Re: The Jurors Speak
Post by: RickyJim on July 26, 2013, 07:26:06 PM
Sorry, wrong link. This is the Nightline segment. (http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/video/george-zimmerman-juror-hearts-felt-guilty-19778568)
I was amazed when she said she didn't try to decide who was screaming because voices change so much when you scream.  So she didn't take much stock in the scream identifying witnesses.  Maybe her hospital work helped her come to that conclusion.  The trouble is, it was about the only thing she said that made sense.
Title: Re: The Jurors Speak
Post by: MJW on July 26, 2013, 08:50:50 PM
I was amazed when she said she didn't try to decide who was screaming because voices change so much when you scream.  So she didn't take much stock in the scream identifying witnesses.  Maybe her hospital work helped her come to that conclusion.  The trouble is, it was about the only thing she said that made sense.

Though it may have made sense not to conclude who was screaming based on the sound or witnesses' testimony based on the sound, the other evidence should have been considered. John Good testified he believed it was GZ screaming; GZ said he was screaming minutes after he shot TM; and normally in a fight/attack, the injured person being held down on his back is more likely to scream than the uninjured person holding him down.
Title: Re: The Jurors Speak
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 26, 2013, 09:49:31 PM
William Saletan, 7/26/13 (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2013/07/did_george_zimmerman_get_away_with_murder_no_juror_b29_is_being_framed.html)
Quote
But the video that’s available already shows, on closer inspection, that Maddy has been manipulated and misrepresented. . . . In the unedited video, Roberts’ question is longer, with words that have been trimmed from the Nightline version, and Maddy pauses twice, for several seconds, as she struggles to answer it. “… George Zimmerman … That’s—George Zimmerman got away with murder. But you can’t get away from God.”

I think this is silly.

Deletion of pauses, hesitations, and repetitions is routine, and obviously useful for saving air time. In this case, I don't think it changes B-29's meaning at all.
Title: Re: The Jurors Speak
Post by: Cylinder on July 26, 2013, 09:57:12 PM
The reaction shot edits are ridiculous in that interview. It's like the reaction roll consisted solely of various hand shifts.
Title: Re: The Jurors Speak
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 26, 2013, 11:20:19 PM
ABC News report (http://www.nbcnews.com/video/nightly-news/46910559#46910559) on GZ's 2005 arrest for Battery LEO, with brief appearances by David Chico (0:41, 1:26). Chico was the prosecutor for that case, now represents B-29.

The ABC report notes that the charge was reduced to a misdemeanor, but doesn't mention that it was ultimately dropped. I think it leaves the impression that GZ's participation in an anger management class was a sentence for a misdemeanor conviction.
Title: Re: The Jurors Speak
Post by: TalkLeft on July 27, 2013, 01:15:13 AM
It was NBC news, not ABC news that reported it and I wrote a long post  (http://www.talkleft.com/story/2012/4/18/205418/108/crimenews/New-Judge-in-George-Zimmerman-Case-is-Married-to-a-State-Homicide-Prosecutor)about it mentioning Chico at the time, linking to the video (http://www.nbcnews.com/video/nightly-news/46910559#46910559).

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 (http://www.wftv.com/videos/news/raw-attorney-family-of-teen-who-was-shot-talk/vGWR9/).  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 (http://myclerk.myorangeclerk.com/default.aspx), 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 (http://myclerk.myorangeclerk.com/default.aspx) 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?
Title: Re: The Jurors Speak
Post by: TalkLeft on July 27, 2013, 01:33:49 AM
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.)
Title: Re: The Jurors Speak
Post by: Cylinder on July 27, 2013, 02:41:42 AM
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.
Title: Re: The Jurors Speak
Post by: who007 on July 27, 2013, 04:11:12 AM
...
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 (http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/12/justice/florida-shooting-charge)
Title: Re: The Jurors Speak
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 27, 2013, 07:13:04 AM
It was NBC news, not ABC news

Right. Sorry for the error.
Title: Re: The Jurors Speak
Post by: TalkLeft on July 27, 2013, 02:22:06 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Jurors Speak
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 27, 2013, 02:48:42 PM
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, (http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/george-zimmerman-juror-29-interview-gma-vote-degree-19779607) 1:23-39
Quote
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.
Title: Re: The Jurors Speak
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 27, 2013, 04:32:43 PM
Below are what I think are B-29's most interesting quotes from the Nightline segment (7/25/13). (http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/video/george-zimmerman-juror-hearts-felt-guilty-19778568) I've included one case of Robin Roberts quoting B-29 indirectly.

1:55
Quote
B-29: I stand by the decision because of the law.

2:03
Quote
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
Quote
B-29: I feel that I was forcibly included in Trayvon Martin's death.

4:04-29
Quote
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, (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyO65lOx0r4#t=07m47s) 7:47-8:19).

4:41-58
Quote
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
Quote
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. (http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_Releases/Zimmerman_Final_Jury_Instructions.pdf)

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. (http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/george-zimmerman-juror-29-interview-gma-vote-degree-19779607) 

6:28
Quote
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
Quote
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
Quote
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
Quote
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.
Title: Re: The Jurors Speak
Post by: unitron on July 27, 2013, 04:35:50 PM
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?
Title: Re: The Jurors Speak
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 27, 2013, 04:48:18 PM
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). (http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2620.msg117423.html#msg117423)
Title: Re: The Jurors Speak
Post by: SuzieTampa on July 27, 2013, 06:03:43 PM
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.

 
Title: Re: The Jurors Speak
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 27, 2013, 06:20:53 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Jurors Speak
Post by: SuzieTampa on July 27, 2013, 07:50:15 PM
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.
Title: Re: The Jurors Speak
Post by: RickyJim on July 27, 2013, 09:00:17 PM
Looks like no more B29 for a while (http://davidchicolaw.com/jurorb29/).  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.
Quote
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
Title: Re: The Jurors Speak
Post by: DiwataMan on July 28, 2013, 04:13:18 AM
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?  :o 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
Title: Re: The Jurors Speak
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 28, 2013, 10:06:38 AM
Bob Somerby (http://dailyhowler.blogspot.dk/2013/07/robin-roberts-and-abc-news.html) (The Daily Howler) on ABC and the B-29 interview.
Title: Re: The Jurors Speak
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 28, 2013, 05:14:31 PM
In the Nightline segment (7/25/13), (http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/video/george-zimmerman-juror-hearts-felt-guilty-19778568) the B-29 interview was chopped up and scattered among other clips. Segments of Tracy and Sybrina being interviewed predominate.

There is a brief clip of Robert Zimmerman Sr. and Gladys Zimmerman, in which only Gladys spoke.

3:19
Quote
Voice Over: [George Zimmerman's] parents spoke to ABC News, offering an apology, to Trayvon's family.

Gladys said 'We are deeply sorry for this tragedy.' To me it seemed more like an expression of sympathy than an apology.

There are also clips of shouting protesters, and of George Zimmerman in the courtroom as a defendant. There is one clip from Obama's speech, a clip from Zimmerman's reenactment video, and a clip of the gun being displayed at the trial.

A bit of Zimmerman's NEN call is played, over a still of the shadowy face of a mature black man with facial hair. The face is dimly illuminated by flashing police lights. I think the imagery is meant to symbolize Zimmerman's presumed racial paranoia. (5:52)

Still pictures are mostly of Trayvon Martin in younger days, including the Hollister shirt, and Trayvon being kissed by Tracy. The Hollister picture is serenaded by one of the more emotional bits of Surdyka's 911 call (6:13).

There are some crime scene pictures, including one of Trayvon's body under the yellow blanket. There are two stills of George Zimmerman, the 2005 mug shot, and the back of his injured head after the blood was cleaned off.

The way the B-29 interview was chopped up and framed, to me suggests that the reasoning, the law, and the evidence underlying the verdict, are not what is of interest. Interest is to focus on the emotions roused by the verdict, of unhappiness, disappointment, and outrage.
Title: Re: The Jurors Speak
Post by: DebFrmHell on July 29, 2013, 09:10:18 PM
Quote
The way the B-29 interview was chopped up and framed, to me suggests that the reasoning, the law, and the evidence underlying the verdict, are not what is of interest. Interest is to focus on the emotions roused by the verdict, of unhappiness, disappointment, and outrage.

That is the same as it has been presented from the start.  Getting people emotionally invested in the outcome because of weak evidence.  I think the Prosecution knew that GZ would most likely be acquitted and they were buying time hoping things would settle down. 

When they started preparing people over a week before the end of the trial; there could be trouble after the verdict, I don't think they were taking about Hispanics/Caucasians rising up. 

What did they think was  going to happen?  People are disappointed with the verdict, the ones that bought the whole narrative,  are the same ones calling on the DOJ to find some other way to convict Zimmerman of ANYTHING just so that he can be punished for protecting his own life.


When B-29 said that she thought it was a "show trial" she was exactly correct.

This is, of course, my own opinion.

**jumps off soap box**
Title: Re: The Jurors Speak
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 30, 2013, 05:05:54 PM
That is the same as it has been presented from the start.  Getting people emotionally invested in the outcome because of weak evidence.

Sure. But I think the Nightline segment (http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/video/george-zimmerman-juror-hearts-felt-guilty-19778568) is an unusually impressive audio-visual representation of the theme.

There are two more things about Nightline's framing of the B-29 interview I want to discuss. The first will be enough for one post. I will discuss the second in a later post.

First is a clip of the B-37 interview (3:45-59).

Quote
I think both were responsible, for the situation they had gotten themselves into. I think both of them could have walked away.

B-37's voice in the clip is very emotional, consistent with the framing discussed in the earlier post. It might be B-37's least favorable comment about Zimmerman, and that might be the reason this particular clip was chosen. It is the only clip of B-37 in the Nightline segment.

This is what followed the B-37 clip (3:59-4:17).
Quote
Robin Roberts: There were some things that the other juror said, that, that you wanted to respond to.

B-29: B-37 used the word 'we', I guess because we were in the jury together.

Robin Roberts: Mmhmm.

B-29: She put it all as in a group.  And the way she made a lot of us sound, we [unintelligible] by color. And that's not what I do.

The juxtaposed comments of the two jurors, B-37 and B-29, bear no relationship to one another that I can discern, either logical or emtional. I feel it makes for an oddly jarring transition.

As I mentioned, that was the only clip from the B-37 interview in the Nightline segment. I missed part of the B-37 interview when it first aired, so I can't say if it includes anything like what B-29 suggested. If it does, why not include that clip in the segment?
Title: Re: The Jurors Speak
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 31, 2013, 12:45:36 AM
That last thing in the B-29 Nightline segment (http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/video/george-zimmerman-juror-hearts-felt-guilty-19778568) that I want to discuss, is a summary of the events of 2/26/12, presented in voice over with a montage of stills and clips (5:35-6:25).

5:40-58
Quote
On February 26, 2012, Martin was walking back to a house, where he and his father were staying. He caught the attention of the self-appointed neighborhood watch captain, George Zimmerman, who called police. . . . They suggested he stay in his car.

Both these memes, 'self-appointed' and 'stay in his car', should be well debunked by now. One of the prosecutors, John Guy, disavowed both in the 6/21/13 session, between jury selection and opening statements (video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohcV83W8EIA#t=20m54s)).

20:54
Quote
As a matter of fact, I believe it would be incorrect to say he's the self-appointed neighborhood watch captain.

22:00
Quote
The facts are that he was told not to follow anyone, specifically, he was asked 'Are you following anyone?', he said 'Yes', the dispatcher said 'We don't need you to do that.' That conversation happened after he was out of the car.

The president of the Home Owners Association for the Retreat at Twin Lakes, Donald O'Brien, testified in George Zimmerman's trial on 6/25/13 (video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DxeDFj5fYoA#t=09m26s#t=06m40s), 6:40).

Quote
Mantei: Was there a person, sort of appointed to be the contact, or the committee chair, as it relates to Neighborhood Watch, by the HOA?
O'Brien: Yes.
Mantei: And this was during your term as president?
O'Brien: Yes.
Mantei: Who is that person?
O'Brien: George Zimmerman.

The 'self-appointed' meme appeared very early, at least as early as Huffington Post, 3/8/12. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/08/family-of-trayvon-martin-_n_1332756.html)

Quote
On his way back home, according to reports, he caught the attention of George Zimmerman, a self-appointed captain of The Retreat at Twin Lakes neighborhood watch.

No source was cited. I have seen this meme repeated many, many times in the press. I haven't seen a source for it cited once.

That the dispatcher, or 'police', directed or advised GZ to 'stay in his car', was foreshadowed in the first national story on the shooting.

Reuters 3/7/12 (http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE82709M20120308?irpc=932)
Quote
"If the 911 protocol across the country held to form here, they told him not to get involved. He disobeyed that order," said Ryan Julison, a spokesman for the family.

"He (Zimmerman) didn't have to get out of his car," said Crump, who has prepared a public records lawsuit to file on Thursday if the family doesn't get the 911 tape. "If he never gets out of his car, there is no reason for self-defense. Trayvon only has skittles. He has the gun."

Ryan Julison, specialist in communications, (http://julisoncom.com/) and 'spokesman for the family', would not appear to be an expert in 911 protocols. Reuters quoted him as one, and didn't bother asking a real expert in the subject.

ABC News, 3/13/12 (http://abcnews.go.com/US/neighborhood-watch-shooting-trayvon-martin-probe-reveals-questionable/story?id=15907136#.T3cXMdVrFc4) (Matt Gutman and Seni Tienabeso)
Quote
A dispatcher told him to wait for a police cruiser, and not leave his vehicle.

No source was cited. The NEN call was publicly released, along with the 911 calls, on 3/16/12.