Potential juror: George Zimmerman defended himself in Trayvon Martin shooting

Miami Herald ^ | June 13, 2013 | David Ovalle

[Uncle Chip]

SANFORD -- With Trayvon Martin’s parents watching uncomfortably from the courtroom gallery, a potential juror on Thursday suggested the slain teen was a pot smoker and aspiring “street fighter” who was “going down the wrong path.”

The woman interviewed on Thursday, on the fourth day of jury selection in the second-degree murder case, said she believed George Zimmerman was a law-abiding gun owner.

“I do believe George was protecting himself,” she said, adding that prosecutors would “have to work very hard” to convince her otherwise if she is selected for the jury.

Her forceful words in defense of Zimmerman were an anomaly.

Most of the potential jurors questioned so far have said they haven’t made up their minds on the facts of the case. At least 20 have been selected to move on to a further round of questioning.

It was unclear Thursday if the woman, who insisted she would have a “bulls eye” on her back if she served on the jury, would be dismissed before a future round of questioning.

Tracy Martin and Sybrina Fulton, Trayvon’s parents, left the courtroom immediately after the woman’s questioning was finished....

[Uncle Chip]

How would you like Nelson and Lester, the judges in this trial picking jurors for you????

[Mr. K]

I know its not a perfect solution

But it removes the selection process from each indivdual case

Letting jury selection go on for days and days is a mess

[Uncle Chip]

It’s the free enterprise system as opposed to judicial tyranny

[ArmstedFragg]

The danger with professional jurists is that they’re paid by the state and can develop a desire not to offend their employer by a not-guilty finding. There has to be a method of assuring their neutrality. One thought is to frequently have a second informal jury that serves only in an advisory capacity to answer the question, “did they get it right”? Those who exhibit clear evidence of bias can then get removed from the pool. Cases where the judge dismisses a conviction notwithstanding the evidence should count against the pro jurors too.

Anyway, in theory a pro jury can be made to work, you just have to do it thoughtfully. The two factors militating against it are that states rarely do anything thoughtfully, and that the constitution gets in the way. Maybe it’s something that could be available at the choice of the defendant.

[ArmstedFragg]

You can still go through voir dire even with the pro pool, and there’s some advantage to knowing the track record of each potential juror. If your case is based on finding a pool of peers stupid enough to buy it, though, you probably wouldn’t want pros.

[kanawa]

Good description of Prospective Juror E81 here...

http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/06/zimmerman-jury-selection-day-four-wrap-up/

I also found the comment by Rick | June 13, 2013 at 8:05 pm interesting...

“Some Jury Selection Reality: I tried high-stakes civil jury cases around the country for 42 years. Through those decades of jury selection I learned a fact that is extremely politically incorrect.

That fact is: Potential jurors who are liberal frequently have an agenda and lie to get on juries when they believe they can strike a blow in favor of their agenda. When, during voir dire, it is clear that such jurors likely have a bias they usually deny that they have a bias and swear, falsely, that they can treat both sides equally, and that neither party starts out with any advantage in their mind. That frequently results in them not being struck for cause.

On the other hand, potential jurors who are conservative and who may have a bias that could impact their view of the case will admit their bias and will admit that they are not absolutely certain that they can overcome that bias, which results in them being struck for cause.

The result of all of this is that the liberal potential jurors with a bias, but who deny it, can be removed only by use of limited peremptory challenges, and the ability to do that is itself limited in the situation in which such jurors are members of some protected demographic group.

On the other hand, the conservative jurors are struck for cause. The overall result is that more liberals than conservatives are on juries.”

[Junior_G]

Faced with guaranteed nationwide rioting and personal death threats, how many jurors will have the balls to do what’s right?

[Uncle Chip]

Good description of Prospective Juror E81 here...

Wow -- we see that precise situation taking place here.

[Uncle Chip]

<>how many jurors will have the balls to do what’s right?<>

not many since the panel is mostly female and the only thing the males have had the balls to do is get themselves kicked off:

Tentative Tally To date

1) B12 W/F
2) B29 B/F
3) B30 W/M (dismissed)
4) B76 W/F
5) B7 W/M
6) B35 B/M
7) B37 W/F
8) B51 W/F
9) B55 A/F
10) B2 middle aged white female(was questioned at bench, talked to judge, I’m assuming she was dismissed)
11) B65 B/F(maybe out/hardship)
12) B86 W/F
13) E6 W/F
14) E40 W/F
15) E54 W/M
16) E73 W/F
17) M75 B/F
18) R39 W/M (dismissed/murder is murder even if self-defense, possibly “white-hispanic”?)
19) B61 W/F
20) B72 W/M (Another white-hispanic?)
21) E22 B/F
22) B87 W/M
23) E7 W/M(Dismissed, trayvonite stealth juror)
24) E13 W/F
25) E28 W/F
26) E50 W/M
27) E75 W/M
28) E81 W/F
29) K80 W/F
30) K95 W/F
31) N18 H/M (probably out)
32) B34 H/M (probably out)
33) B67 H/F (probably out/hardship)
34) P67 H/M
35) G14 W/F

[Mr. K]

can a judge direct a verdict in all cases?

I have heard of this only once- but I thought the judge in the OJ Simpson case should have directed a verdict of guilty and thrown the whole jury in jail for contempt of court.

Maybe they can only direct a verdict of not guilty. (I honestly don’t know)

[Kenny Bunk]

Technical name for a Florida Resident: FLORIDIOT
Aren't these "prospective jurors" smart enough to dummy up a little bit.?

Apparently not. So the jury is to be made up of black postal employees, welfare mothers with incarcerated 'boyfriends,' and a token white, gay sociology professor from one of FL's innumerable community colleges.

All they are going to have in common is that
"Honest Ms. Judge, I ain't never heared a word about no Trayvon. Uh huh, no M'am, not me. Trayvon? Who he?"

I ain't complaining. Things never looked better for the St. Trayvon Hoodie and Memorabilia Company.

[JimRed]

Faced with guaranteed nationwide rioting and personal death threats, how many jurors will have the balls to do what’s right?

It's Florida- the jurors might be armed; that could give pause to the thugs.

[ArmstedFragg]

There’s a sixth amendment problem that gets in the way of attempting to direct a verdict following a jury finding of not guilty, and praise be to that.

[supercat]

How Jurors answer, and what their words actually mean, can lead to incorrect inferences on the part of the person questioning them. ;-)

Consider the statement "If you tell me what the law is, I will follow it". Such a statement does not imply "I will blindly regard anything you say as the law and follow it", but I don't know how many prosecutors would want to overtly request the latter degree of acquiescence.