Posted on 07/13/2013 4:52:03 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Lawyers and media go into full "what does it mean" mode when during deliberations the jury sends out a question. The lawyers' legs turn to noodles while they wait for the Judge to read the question(s) posed. (A lot can be speculated by jurors' questions.)
The process goes something like this:
- Jurors agree on the question. They write it on to a piece of paper. (No e-mail, texts, or electronic means used to communicate the question.)
- A juror hands it to the deputy / bailiff posted at the jury room door.
- The bailiff walks it to the judge who reads it.
- BY LAW, counsel on both sides must be notified and summoned to court that "the jury has a question."
- After counsel arrive in court the Judge reads the question, on the record.
- The Judge and counsel then discuss a response, how the Judge answer the question.
- The Judge send the jury a written answer, provide the jury what they asked for (a paper document), or even a refusal by the Judge to answer the question.
The question this jury had, two hours into deliberations, you can listen in the video, but it was something like:
"Is there an inventory list of what is in evidence?"
It appears that everyone agreed to provide that to the jury.
What does THAT question mean? Hell, I dunno. My best guesses:
- Asking for an "exhibits list" of ADMITTED evidence two hours into deliberations could mean anything.
1. The jury has reached a verdict and they want a list to make sure they did not miss anything.
or
2. They are NOT near a verdict and thought it would be handy to have an exhibits list to refer to while they deliberate.
or
3. They could be NEAR a verdict, but want to continue to deliberate and want an exhibits list simply because they are being careful. They want to consider all charges and evidence.
or
4. They are near a verdict, but are worried about having targets on their backs, or being responsible for riots (with a not guilty verdict) so they want to appear to have thought long and hard about the verdict.
Note: IMO 3.5 is not that long to deliberate on a two to three week trial (or longer if you include the voir dire process).
I find it very, very interesting that the jury would NOT simply soldier on past 6:00 p.m. This tells me that they were NOT close to reaching a verdict. If they were, they would have stayed past 6:00 p.m. to wrap things up.
This also tells me that the jury is taking their charge (job) very seriously. Many juries would have wanted to reach a verdict simply because they wanted to go home by the weekend, especially if the jury is sequestered like this one.
Regardless of what WE think, George Zimmerman, his counsel, and the prosecution team won't be getting much, if any, sleep tonight.
I don't wonder at all, When I was on jury duty on a very simple cut-n-dry case (guilty DUI) we deliberated 6 hours on a Friday and came to no verdict. Monday morning within 30 minutes we turned in a verdict.
If 69 years has taught me anything and I know it has, the verdict will depend on the woman who has the strongest personality in that room, the others will eventually go along. Since most liberal dingbats don’t HAVE a very strong personality I have some hope that there may be an acquittal.
I agree that it is absurd to have a murder charge with a male victim and male shooter tried by six women and no men. It never should have happened.
The government IS the savage class. Criminals have infested the government at all levels and break the law with impunity. One would be a fool to assume there is any system that still administers justice in this country.
thats a Obama state media outlet .
They got the marching orders .
Hung jury .
There is at least one lib maybe two on the jury and there. Lefty politics trump evidence .
A jury of your peers all women in a man to man fight with a self defense issue. It’s just crazy.
I’m not sure about that. Now-adays it seems most men are so passive and weak that the average woman is more masculine.
My theory is the jurors want to have a timeline so that they can determine who was the aggressor in the situation and to be more clear on the facts of the struggle -
Unless the judge clearly indicated it would not be allowed as evidence I think they will be surprised the “ incident animation video” is not included.
I may take crap for this but knowing a lawyers wife is on the jury gives me some relief.
No crap from me, same thought based on Omara/ West knowing this and still selecting her.
One way to do this is to assign a value of 1 to 10 to each piece of evidence, including witness testimony, with 10 being the most important and 1 being the least important, and then assign a number such as 10 being most favorable to the prosecution, 0 being most favorable to the defense and 5 being neutral. The jury then calculates a maximum prosecution score by multiplying the importance value for each piece of evidence by the maximum prosecution value (10) and then adds the scores for each piece of evidence to establish a maximum value for all evidence in favor of the prosecution. For example, if there are 100 pieces of evidence and each one has an importance value of 5, then the maximum value in favor of the prosecution is 5000 (100 x 5 x 10) and the score most favorable to the defense is 0 (100 x 5 x 0).
After establishing the maximum possible value in favor of the prosecution, the jury then goes back over the evidence and assigns a number for the actual value of each piece of evidence to the prosecution and then adds the numbers up to see where the total score for all evidence stands within the minimum to maximum range (i.e., 0 to 5000, using the example above). If the total score is less than 95% of the maximum (4750), for example, then the jury may conclude that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
My point is that in order to assign a numerical weight to the evidence it helps to have a complete list of each exhibit to work from.
The one thing that I have learned in thirty years as a trial lawyer is that while each jury is different, there are a finite number of methods that they use to evaluate the evidence and make a decision including “gut feeling,” “reasoned analysis,” ”mathematical/quantitative analysis” (some variation of what I have described), and “peer pressure/bullying.”
Ann Coulter had an excellent take on the Zimmerman trial last night on Hannity. To paraphrase she summed it up by asking what kind of society are we living in that would prosecute and persecute a good and honorable citizen like George Zimmerman. What kind of society are we living in indeed.
The one thing that I have learned in thirty years as a trial lawyer is that while each jury is different, there are a finite number of methods that they use to evaluate the evidence and make a decision including “gut feeling,” “reasoned analysis,” ”mathematical/quantitative analysis” (some variation of what I have described), and “peer pressure/bullying.”
Thks for your insight.
As long as its not peer pressure /bullying I think they will have listened to OMara more than “ deflect and feelings team”
I don’t understand why only 6 jurors can make this decision if it COULD lead to GZ spending the rest of his life in prison.
That should be 12 in the jury, IMO.
The case for self defense is so clear and compelling I can’t imagine why they need to see anything again.
They could easily have gone tight into the jury room yesterday, elected a foreperson, took a vote, ALL voted to acquit, and they sat there and said to themselves..look, we have to sit here for a few days and pretend like we’re deliberating, otherwise, they will make our lives miserable..
I’m hurting just thinking about what the Zimmermans are suffering now.
I watched every televised moment of the trial and listened to the instructions, George Zimmerman is just simply not guilty.
They could easily have gone tight into the jury room yesterday, elected a foreperson, took a vote, ALL voted to acquit, and they sat there and said to themselves..look, we have to sit here for a few days and pretend like we’re deliberating, otherwise, they will make our lives miserable..
Hoping thats what happened or they gave first impressions subject to evidence review.
In other words Not Guilty but lets check our opinion against anything of major significance we missed.
I’m not convinced that some on the jury know at least a little of Martin’s background. It was weeks after the incident that GZ was arrested. In all that time info was out there.
If their intent is simply to be thorough, I would be encouraged on GZ’s behalf. The State’s case was all about dubious testimony and GZ’s bad language, not evidence. Can anyone think of a single item of physical evidence used in this case that supports a verdict of guilty?
So the jury’s questions suggests:
1) At least one juror asserts that some piece of imagined evidence proves GZ’s guilt. The other jurors want the inventory so they can show that it does not exist. [Stealth juror?]
2) Jurors noticed the lack of critical evidence (toxicology report?), and are checking to see if they missed it. (Given the juror profiles, I doubt they think this way).
->>The case for self defense is so clear and compelling I can’t imagine why they need to see anything again.
I heard a analyst on local Fox here to say that for some reason, the judge did not send back the list of evidence or it just did not get sent back last night with the jurors by error. I don’t think the jurors want to do this in a hurry so it does not comes across as they did not take their time. I think they should make a verdict soon, though.
If I have a stroke I’m gonna be really pissed off!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.