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.
In my experience educated women will approach their task professionally and methodically.
They had a two week trial they were not going to jump to a verdict in two hours.
Yes just about everyone on here wanted them to stand up in their chairs without even leaving the courtroom, and shout Not Guilty! Not going to happen. We do not control the jury.
I agree 100% the state did NOT prove Zimmerman to be guilty of anything.
However, the issue always has been was he justified to fire his weapon under the circumstances. Had the state not overreached, that issue would have been more clear. But the manslaughter charge is there and it’s possible the jury will conclude he should not have fired.
If they do that it will be based on his muttered comment at the beginning, the idea that his injuries were not that severe, that he was no longer over the cement, that he knew the police were about to get there, and that they don’t believe TM threatened him with death.
Unfair in my opinion, but plausible. The state obfuscated this whole thing because they didn’t want to admit Zimmerman was on the ground getting beat up.
I usually get rejected, but in my one big case we got it right. Yes, they withheld important information, but we still got the correct verdict. Better I should be on the jury (if I don’t get bumped) than some moron who can’t think and doesn’t know the Constitution should be there.
Agree with Ann Coulter and you. The police at all levels investigated and they held the line and did not want to charge. That is good. But political pressure was used to demand a trial for racial reasons. That is bad and helps identify where the cowardice resides in this society.
A just society would have told their police to call it straight down the line, then told the community tough luck, we are doing this by the book and don’t you dare riot.
We don’t live in that society, we live in one intimidated along racial lines by leftists. IF we had fair observers in our society we would recognize this is as evil as lynch mobbing blacks to trial decades ago.
I would simply say “you are stupid, obnoxious,” etc. Nothing could make me change my mind under those circumstances.
They are saying on our local Fox that a whistleblower who works inside the state of Florida’s Jacksonville office (legal technician) tried to get out data to the defense about Trayvon’s drug use and photos of him with firearms though the state attorney’s office put those pictures back deliberate.
The technician was so concerned of the violations that he contacted O’Mara’s office to let him know that these photos should be given to him as evidence but they were being held back by Mr. Guy’s office in Jacksonville.
The technician was fired this morning they just reported. They are saying it’s a big political scandal being covered up. They said lawsuits will be flying over the place.
If he were to be charged, this will give him more proof the court withheld evidence at the time of discovery. The judge could be dirty/certainty bias. She knew this was the defense’s concerns and never ruled on to allow them to have this evidence.
Just wait until those jurors find out little angel boy had an interest in guns and pics of him holding a gun.
BRAVO to your statement!
Didn’t Obama just tell govt. employees to snitch on one another? Geesh! The IT guy was only seeing something wrong and pointing it out!
Angela Corey is an evil witch.
The problem is you can get stuck on a jury and act like Henry Fonda in 12 Angry Men and still come out with a bum verdict. The last time I served (and I will not serve again!), we had a fellow juror - a Korean immigrant - who didn’t know what the 5th Amendment was. And once he heard what it was, he didn’t like it! It would be funny if not so tragic.
To me this means they are all not agreeing. Whether it means that there is one or two holdouts either way it would be impossible to say.
If there's a holdout for acquittal, I prefer it to be a woman than a man. It's been my experience that, in a group of women, a man disagreeing with a woman will have the rest gang up on him.
She is mean, I agree.
It is my understanding that a grand jury looked at the evidence and came up with the one charge of second degree. If they wanted manslaughter, they would have charged manslaughter. This judge invalidated the work of a grand jury so why call a grand jury to begin with?
I don’t know about everyone else but I have a hard enough time trying to figure out what one woman is thinking.. I can’t pretend to even begin to believe I can figure out what six are thinking about.
There was NO grand jury. The state (via Corey) bypassed the grand jury (since they were afraid the gj would no bill) and issued the charges themselves. That is one of the many scandals/shady practices in this trial...
Very well stated. Another Ann Coulter quote. “Better to be a wanna be cop than a wanna be thug.”
They could spend a year looking for evidence that Zimmerman is guilty and still not find it cuz it isn’t there. This should already be a done deal.
Why they wouldn’t bring all the evidence to the jury room out of the gate is beyond me!
I thought the Defense was masterful with the life size cutouts displayed behind them in line of sight of the jury during closing arguments. It constantly speaks to the subconscious of the jury. Who was the bigger man? You can only draw one conclusion!
Maybe it just means they all like the Saturday morning pancake buffet at the hotel?????
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.