Sorry if I unintentionally offended you. It just seemed to me from your comment that your mind was already predisposed that letting Mr. Z. go scot-free would not likely serve justice, nor would a murder conviction. Saying:
"I’m not sure what would be proper justice if that scenario happened."
would be a fair and impartial statement. But under questioning in voir dire about any leaning you already had, if you added to the above and answered with:
"Certainly not murder, but letting Zimmerman go scot-free may not be justice, either."
then I doubt that either the judge, prosecutor, or defense would seat you. The only mindset acceptable would give the message:
"I will only know when I have heard all the testimony to be given."
In truth, pretty much whatever you have heard on this website or other media outlet is hearsay; and not fit, no matter how compelling, for causing one to be swayed from neutrality in the matter as regarding jury service. N'est ce pas?"
then I doubt that either the judge, prosecutor, or defense would seat you. The only mindset acceptable would give the message:
"I will only know when I have heard all the testimony to be given."
In truth, pretty much whatever you have heard on this website or other media outlet is hearsay; and not fit, no matter how compelling, for causing one to be swayed from neutrality in the matter as regarding jury service. N'est ce pas?"
I am a scientist, not a lawyer, and my language reflects that. Scientists are not trained to say, "I'll wait until I see all the evidence to make up my mind." We are trained to express possibilities as a means of both saying that we don't have enough facts to decide, and of suggesting the kind of evidence that would enable a decision. That is what I did. Although maybe I was too certain in saying that I don't think this is a case of intentional murder.
I've no doubt that if I were being questioned as a part of jury selection, the lawyers would have all kinds of questions.