Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Stealth jurors? Excuse me? So there was no possibility that there were jurors who had their minds made up from the get go that George was not guilty?
In my mind, anyone, leaning either way could have had preconceived notions.
Sure there could be stealth jurors. Didn't they get rid of 2 Guilty stealthers during questioning.
The point is, the 3 who voted for Guilty to start might have had preconceived notions and decided during trial to follow the law.
I keep reading what a rotten job the prosecution did, so it makes sense that a mind would change from guilty to non guilty rather than the other way around.
I learned something from Rachel's interview. The word 'cracka' means like a cop or security guard. That makes perfect sense with what I've thought happened.
Now that B37 has announced she will be writing a book about her experiences as a juror on the Zimmerman trial, and has been interviewed by Anderson Cooper, it seems to me that this trial may have been over the moment jury selection was completed.
It seems that B37 at least viewed this whole thing through her own pre-conceptions. She also mentioned stand-your-ground several times, and that wasn't even Zimmerman's defense.
What do you think?
I think the entire case against George Zimmerman was extremely weak and the prosecution did a terrible job. Any juror convicting the man would have to be extremely biased against him. Innocent until proven guilty. The prosecution couldn't have proven guilt because they lacked the requisite time machine and mind reading device to know what GZ was thinking the moment he pulled the trigger. If GZ had no injuries and no basis for claiming self defense, they'd have had a much stronger case against him.
I don't think writing a book makes you guilty of already having your mind made up before the trial begins. As to your underlying question, she answered it right at the beginning of the interview. She didn't know much of anything about the case because she hadn't been following it.
This is a case that was pretty much doomed from the start. Unfortunate that such an impossible case got turned into the next Dredd Scott, Brown vs the Board of Education or OJ Simpson trial. It is terrible that no justice can be had for Trayvon Martin. That is a tragedy but there just wasn't enough evidence to do it. But we don't convict people of crimes because it's convenient or politically correct, and heaven help us if/when we do! Now we've added yet another racially divisive controversy to further fuel the escalating fires of racial tensions in this nation. If the victim had been white or Hispanic, the case probably wouldn't have even made it to trial and nobody would have even heard of it.
B37 seemed very sympathetic with George, and even said based on a hypothetical question that she would be happy to have him do Neighborhood Watch in her neighborhood!
Her racial bias could not have been more obvious, in fact, crystal clear. I listened to her interview a second time last night, when it was aired again after the Piers Morgan program. The second time around, I was even more appalled. In the South, particularly in towns like Sanford, a formal "education" does not change the deep cultural influences of the society in when the residents live and for some in which they were born and raised. Her continued use of "they"....when talking about Rachel, referring to "how they live" and how "they were raised," and "the environment in which they live." I'm very familiar with the Southern vocabulary when it comes to white racism, and that juror was, IMO, clearly the "leader" of that jury and she was as biased as I've ever seen. She was also, in my opinion, a person of old habitual racism so much so she didn't even realize the many ways in which she demonstrated that in her speech and tone. I wouldn't buy her book if it were on sale for fifty cents.
Additionally, if she is the juror who is married to an attorney, not ALL attorneys are smart, and not all attorneys are successful, and not all attorneys marry smart women. The eagerness with which this particular juror gave this interview and sought out a way to make money from her "experience" on the jury says to me that she was a stealth juror from the start, and that she and her husband NEED money any way they can make it.
I certainly hope other jurors speak out and are willing to tell us how much influence Juror B37 had in that jury room. I'd like to hear from the jurors who did not walk into the deliberation room with a guilty verdict already formed.
As to your underlying question, she answered it right at the beginning of the interview. She didn't know much of anything about the case because she hadn't been following it.
And I do NOT believe for ONE SECOND that this woman didn't know much about the case because she hadn't been following it. I think she lied to get on the jury! I hope her book turns out to be everything I think she deserves.
And I do you believe for ONE SECOND that this woman didn't know much about the case because she hadn't been following it. I think she lied to get on the jury! I hope her book turns out to be everything I think she deserves.
And I do you believe for ONE SECOND that this woman didn't know much about the case because she hadn't been following it. I think she lied to get on the jury! I hope her book turns out to be everything I think she deserves.
So you're a conspiracy theorist and you've convicted her of this conspiracy based purely upon speculation and conjecture. That's nice.
I believe you are a purple and green sasquatch and I don't think you can prove me wrong. (Hint: That's how conspiracy theories work. They make ridiculous claims without any evidence, require others to prove them wrong and they refuse to believe it when somebody definitively proves them wrong.)
I have heard it said, if cynically, that a trial is over the minute the last juror is selected. All I can say at this point is that both sides had the chance to accept or reject jurors.
Each side has a limited number of strikes when selecting a jury. That made it more difficult for the prosecution in a case like this in a little town/county with a very long and ugly history of white racism, considering the victim was black. Once one side uses all their peremptory strikes, it's pretty hard to keep people off the jury. At the end of jury selection, the prosecution tried to have two of the women taken off....I'm guessing the only option they had remaining to remove jurors was the "strike for cause" reason......and they were unsuccessful in doing so. I'm not surprised that the prosecution, in that case in that location, would have used up all their strikes before the defense. A "peremptory challenge" is what's known as a "strike," each side has a LIMITED number of strikes during jury selection. That is different from a "strike for cause"....those are not limited but there are specific reasons required and the motion must be made to the judge and the judge rules on the motion.
"Strike for cause (also referred to as challenge for cause or removal for cause) is a method of eliminating potential members from a jury panel in the United States.
During the jury selection process, after voir dire, opposing attorneys may request removal of any juror who does not appear capable of rendering a fair and impartial verdict, in either determining guilt or innocence and/or a suitable punishment.[1] An example would be a potential juror in a murder case, where the sentencing options are death or life without parole, who states that s/he "would sentence a defendant to death if found guilty"; such a statement may indicate the person's unwillingness to fairly consider a life sentence.
Unlike a peremptory challenge (the number of which are limited by the court during voir dire) there is no limit to the number of strikes for cause that attorneys on either side of a case can be granted. However, also unlike a peremptory challenge, a strike for cause must state a specific reason and be granted by the trial judge; often both attorneys and sometimes the judge will question the juror being challenged.
If one attorney moves to strike a juror for cause but the judge rejects the motion, the attorney may still use a peremptory challenge (if s/he has any remaining) to strike the juror, and on appeal may raise a claim that the motion should have been granted but, because it was not, the attorney had to either use a peremptory challenge or seat a biased juror."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
