The jurors can claim to be unbiassed when selected, but once they get to the deliberations stage, what's to stop them from ignoring the evidence presented in the trial and going by what they initially heard on TV?
It could be like the trial in To Kill a Mockingbird.
“The jurors can claim to be unbiassed when selected, but once they get to the deliberations stage, what’s to stop them from ignoring the evidence presented in the trial and going by what they initially heard on TV?”
Interesting point you make.
It may be next to impossible to seat an “unbiased jury” for this case, given the attention it’s received and the racial polarization that has accompanied it.
Most whites “see the case” from a certain perspective. On the other hand, with few exceptions blacks seem to view it from 180 degrees opposite. It’s unclear right now how hispanics feel about it - one would believe they would be showing more interest in the case. Perhaps they are, but we aren’t seeing that just yet.
Even when presented with the same set of facts, white jurors vis-a-vis black jurors are going to perceive those [same] facts to mean “different truths”, and take those opposing truths into the jury room with them.
For such reasons, I’m wondering if a hung jury becomes inevitable. Whites/hispanics will probably accept the concept of “reasonable doubt” once the jury room door is closed. But I sense that blacks - even blacks who pass voir dire to gain a seat on the jury panel - will be predisposed towards conviction, and simply refuse to agree to a “not guilty” verdict, even if the evidence points in that direction.
So — a conviction may be unlikely based on the evidence we have seen; yet even in the presence of sufficient evidence favoring the defendant, an acquittal becomes all-but impossible. You can call my prediction bigoted if you wish, but that’s how I’m seeing it.
I would think that one of the first things Zimmerman’s attorney will do is request a change of venue. The obvious question would be “to where?”
But the real question is “to whom”?