Posted on 06/13/2013 11:39:53 AM PDT by 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....
(Excerpt) Read more at miamiherald.com ...
I’m guessing she ain’t “amish”.
I would like to sit on that jury. However my sense of integrity is high enough that had I been asked those questions I would have answered them the Sam way.
Unlike the Liberal sh*t who tried to lie his way onto the jury yesterday.
Awwwww.... he couldn’t even afford a belt to hold up his panties.
I would not want to be on this jury for two reasons. One, because they are going to be sequestered away staring at each other and arguing for many months with no way to work or lead a normal life. Two, because as others have said, jurors will have a bullseye on their backs. If Zimmerman is acquitted, there will be ‘kill the jury’ riots.
SAME way. Stupid autocorrect ...
I once said to the judge that "Lawyers are bloodsuckers". After they gave us a 90 minute lunch break I was kicked off the jury. This was in July. Good move on my part. The trial lasted into November and the three defendants (who could NOT speak English) were let off by the judge who said the snitch who ratted on them was not credible.
On another case IF I wanted to be removed I could have told the truth. When I was in the military we bought a female Airman a baseball bat for her birthday and told her to use it on her husband the next time he hit her. The case was a domestic battery case, but they picked the jury before my name was called. I would not have minded being on that one.
Only six jurors are needed.
It’s a shame I don’t live there. I would love to be on that jury.
The prosecution should keep her since she had confirmed that their intimidation tactics are working on her.
The only time I was summoned for jury duty and had to go through the jury selection process, I was selected for the jury. This, despite the fact that my dad was a correctional officer, I served in the military as security police, both my brothers-in-law were law enforcement with one being an FBI agent. Not only was I selected, but I wound up as foreman. It was a very simple case, which only lasted one day, and the man was found guilty. I was surprised the defense allowed me to serve.
she is 100% correct.
The prosecution HAS TO work to PROVE their case. Trials are 100% unfair for the prsecution by design.
Trials are NOT impartial, NOT fair, NOT unbiased.
After they get their Civics 101 lecture from the Judge.
They still teach Civics, don't they?
My bad...
Still, you can't have it both ways.
Regards,
GtG
The truth hurts.
The mother of George Zimmerman's attacker ADMITTED ON NATIONAL TV that she believed the shooting was an accident!
Here is the link:
http://www.today.com/video/today/47027225#47027225
But the media, eager to make George's attacker an innocent child who never did anything wrong and never stole anything, won't remind you of this fact.
Frankly, I am surprised the Today show hasn't scrubbed this video.
Well, isn’t a juror supposed to begin with a presumption of innocence, and isn’t the state SUPPOSED to have to work hard to sway the juror from that position?
So this can’t be grounds for her dismissal, exempt as a peremptory challenge, I guess.
Excellent point that gets lost in all of this questioning in search of a blank slate juror.
Frankly, I think that is a pretty good standard to take into any court case. After all, we presume the innocence of the defendant. It is the prosecution's case to change that presumption of innocence, to a belief beyond a reasonable doubt that the person is guilty.
If I ever get called to a jury, and they ask me, while everybody else is going to say "open mind", I'm going to say I presume the defendant is innocent.
This is one of the few potential jurors to have taken that position and the only one who has stated it so eloquently. She was evidentially and legally correct. The court needs 5 more just like her.
And yet after her interview Bernie was at the sidebar forcefully arguing for her dismissal for cause.
The prosecution AND the defense should not get to spend hours and hours of court time to ‘pick’ a jury they like- that is by definition bias.
There should be a panel of judges that select PROFESSIONAL jurists, who serve for a year or two, and who's job is to sit on juries. Then when a case comes up, you get the next 12 on the list.
The jurists would be selected based ONLY on if they have a half a brain and are able to listen to and make fair decisions. They can apply for the job or, even better, be nominated by people who think them fair-minded.
Open for discussion?
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.