Thank you @MoreandAgain!

example that we need a different method for selecting juries in high profile cases. In England they have essentially professional jurors - could that be an option for high profile cases?

For one thing, it would be much easier to corrupt "professional jurors" than the amateurs we use now. I think a lot of paid "professional jurors," especially as they develop track records, would turn into "professional convicters," always angling for the next case & making sure the prosecutors won't throw them off the next jury.

In most cases, particularly involving the indigent and minorities, it's already too damn easy to convict.

The quality of the juries you get reflects the quality of the society from which they're drawn. Want better juries? Educate society.

Our system is based on what Benjamin Franklin stated as, "it is better one hundred guilty persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer". I'm afraid we're now looking at one of those guilty persons who has managed to escape justice. Unfortunately there's not a lot we can now do about it, except, as Jackpine said, improve the education given to all our children (and our police departments - remember that it took a 6 week long public outcry before this case began to be properly investigated). Yes, it's horrible for a victim's parents to see his killer go free, but in the great scheme of things I have to agree that it's far worse to have innocent people jailed and put to death.

edit to add: As to the original post, it's great to see that a broad public pressure has resulted in one less greedy individual profiting from a tragedy. The only people who deserve anything, IMO, are Trayvon Martin's parents.

since it is disqualifying to know the facts about a case. Back to the defense's knock-knock joke which was sickening when a child was dead and a man was on trial for his life, but did illustrate the problem we have with our current jury system and high profile cases.

You are probably right that the cure is worse than the disease, but what would be wrong with allowing intelligent individuals who keep up with the news serve on juries?

Like I said something needs to be done about high profile cases. Education will not work because those people will keep up with the news.

I've often thought it would be good to have jurors who take a sabbatical, to serve for a few months, or a year, paid their regular salary. It can be hard to put one's life on hold to show up each day, not even sure if you'll ever be selected.

But then, I'm a teacher. Willing to serve, but not willing to subject my students to day after day of substitutes and substitute lesson plans.

I never thought about the possible corruption, but I can see that it would be inevitable. Fortunately, in my current state, I can "postpone" the call for jury duty until summer.

Let us not, in our anger over the Zimmerman decision, lose further control over a system that can be used against any of us.

n.t.

Most jurors end up being people who were too stupid to get out of jury duty. Yes, there are some people who have lives flexible enough that the disruption of jury duty wouldn't be a hardship (retired folk as an example) or those who really feel committed to serving the system, but most of the people we know have been called a number of times, and been excused as soon as they send in the form.

There does need to be a better system for jury selection.

Speaking as a Canadian; we don't have professional jurors, but perhaps our system is different, and it is harder to get out of jury duty there.

where you are simply not allowed to 'get out of' jury duty. I know people who have gotten out of jury duty for the dumbest reasons. What they need to do is pay people their current wages, make it illegal for the employer to take any action against the employee (I think that's the case here in Canada right now anyway, but not the 'wages' part - when I served I got $15/day. It was pitiful. What hourly employee would take THAT?) If you have children, the court should be required to provide licensed on-site daycare and if you are nursing a baby you should get regular breaks to nurse the baby. If you are in school, the court should be required to give you a tutor or reimburse you class costs. And so on...if you were unable to get out of jury duty because of stupid reasons - if it was absolutely mandatory except for extreme extenuating circumstances...you would have smarter, more dedicated juries.

Plus, it should just be people chosen at random. I disagree with the way juries are chosen. In the case I served, the defense tried to get an all-woman jury for 'sympathy' plus the notices to serve were only sent to certain communities in the area that had French-speaking schools (because they needed bilingual jurors). They went through hundreds of people to get 12 that served them best. That's not very equitable. For real fairness, it should be a jury chosen at random. As it stands now, it's whoever has the lawyer that is the best a choosing a favorable jury that wins. That's crap, IMO.

He hits the roof when I, and his other liberal friends, talk about avoiding jury duty. He says we need more liberal people showing up instead of the usual law and order repub types he sees.

I'll bet there is more to this story.

Was her husband (lawyer) a friend of the defense?

When did this conversation with her husband about this book took place?


It was only hours after the verdict.

That was a really stupid thing for her to say, then again she sounds like an opportunistic jack wagon.

I have no more information though and don't
know if it's true.

Amazing! Thank you from all of us sane people.

to cry about "free speech rights getting violated"!

K&R.

an argument from an apologist this morning which topped ALL of their talking points: Zimmerman is a target of black racism, and the trial was instigated by black racism against a white boy.

They are not even trying to be subtle anymore.

You can send me a PM to tell me if you'd like.

...to be concerned about free speech rights?

I think this sucks, I think this woman is a jerk, and I would vocally never buy her book. However, unless she signed some kind of non-disclosure, she is completely free to pursue the American Dream of making money from other people's misfortune.

No one held a gun to their heads. They realized they couldn't make money off the atrocity, and so they dropped the idea.

One would have to be an idiotic Zimmerman defender to believe that the consequences of the free market are predicated on 1st Amendment rights.

"he is completely free to pursue the American Dream of making money from other people's misfortune..."
As is the book publisher completely free to pursue better public relations and maintain the integrity of their brand by dropping her.

...the house-brand for the conservatard movement.
And with the wingnut-welfare system and bulk-purchases, it'll be an instant best-seller...
...before it winds up on the remainder shelf in short order.

constitutional guarantee of free speech refers only to the prohibition against the government's suppression of speech. Private individuals and companies are not included in that prohibition.

She has a right to sign a book deal. The publisher has a right to sign her. The public has a right to complain. And the publisher has a right to reconsider and to decide that it would hurt their bottom line more than it would help it to publish her book.

If she believes there is a real market for her book, she is free to self publish it, and those who want to read it would be free to purchase it and read it.

Why is this so hard for people to figure out?

There is nothing that give her the right to a book contract.

some others simply exercised theirs.

Or made plans with her attorney husband to cash in on the trial.

The speed with which this announcement followed the verdict raises suspicions about the integrity of her jury service.

And I think that should be woven into the judicial system.

They can talk about it all they want, but they should not be able to make money from it.

Allowing that kind of 'speech' is basically introducing a conflict of interest into the jury deliberations. Potentially a juror could be considering what verdict would spark the most interest in a book.

Amendment SPECIFICALLY refers to the federal government's ability to limit speech.

and others are also equally free to tell her and her potential, prospective publishers and agents how they feel about it and they, in turn are free to take that into account when deciding what to do. See how that works?

Seems we sometimes forget this when things seem too big to impact.

so we could see how the morons came up with that verdict.
My guess is, if it was a split vote the first time, the others were muscled into "not guilty" so they could all go home.

During the interview with Anderson cooper she didn't seem to be to bright.

I was like, no way she wrote that - she done went and got herself a PR person... lol.

Which means that she and hubby have hired a PR firm which means that they are still planning to capitalize on the case. I think that's why she got herself on the jury in the first place. I'd like to know more about what she said during deliberations.

I heard Randi Rhodes talking about this the other day, before the verdict. About this trial and other issues in the news in which the PEOPLE rose up and spoke, and outshouted all the special interests. WOW! Civilian justice, via the internet.

Let's study this. We should ALL take an excellent lesson from this. About what CAN be done, even in the face of injustice and unfairness and perceived powerlessness to do anything about it!

Storify is an interesting idea for a website: http://storify.com/MoreAndAgain/how-juror-b37-was-dropped-from-martin-literary-man

Morbid POS!

Folks don't listen to reason, but they have to respond to force.

My lily white ass has black on white racism for the court system in Sanford, FLA.

She had a name, an address, and other public profile. I'm sure she realized her life was going to be hell if she continued to shop this book. Half the country would be writing her hate mail.

Juror B27 probably also realized that her identity could not be kept secret either ... and probably won't be. In a way, I'm enjoying that these people, from Zimmerman to the agent to the juror(s), are going to get a taste of what it feels like to be a black youth in America. Half the population is going to be staring you down, avoiding you, or possibly going after you, for the rest of your life. Enjoy.

Last edited Tue Jul 16, 2013, 04:25 PM - Edit history (1)

and thanks to MoreandAgain for her outstanding activism.

What kind of questions did they ask them? The main thing I think lawyers should bare down on is JUDGEMENT. Does this person have good judgement? Can this person deliberate in good faith? Juror B37 definitely did NOT have good judgement! Her interview with Anderson Cooper proved this point. Maybe they should give potential jurors an intelligence test, which also includes questions of judgement and honesty.

defense attorney?

nothing to do with intelligence, but connections.

You know.. like the disclaimers when you give when you have a raffle or contest... "Club members and anyone associated with club members, are not permitted to participate." Why is "conflict of interest" so hard to understand? Did the lawyers not ask about conflicts of interest?

This trial should have had a change of venue, period.

New York Magazine
July 15, 2013

"5 Ways the Prosecution Messed Up the Zimmerman Case"

1) The Special Prosecutor Jammed the Charges Through.
After investigating for 44 days, local law enforcement decided not to prosecute, concluding that Zimmerman had legitimate grounds for a justifiable homicide defense.
Then came a special prosecutor, Angela Corey, who was appointed to review the case.
In this way, the Zimmerman case came to resemble New York's racially charged Howard Beach case, in which the locals didn't prosecute until special prosecutor Charles Hynes stepped in.
But the similarities end there.

Unlike Corey, Hynes empaneled a grand jury before pressing charges.
Corey skipped that step -- "a tremendous flaw," according to defense attorney Arthur Aidala.
"Typically you could say, 'Well, the grand jury thought it was enough," Aidala says.
"Here, it was not the case. The special prosecutor couldn't say that."

Other ways the prosecution messed up the case:
- They should have asked for manslaughter from the start.
- Prosecution witnesses seemed poorly prepared.
- The scream.
- The prosecutor allowed Martin to be put on trial.


Read entire article:
http://www.nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/07/5-ways-the-prosecution-blew-the-zimmerman-case.html/


IMO, the special prosecutor blew it...There should have been at least 1 or 2 blacks on that jury

This is not over with. Justice was NOT served in Sanford, Fl. on Saturday night. It's clear as the noses on our faces. If it was supposed to be a jury of Trayvon's peers, where were they? They damn sure weren't on that jury! There should have been more men, more blacks. Two whites, max. Nothing was right from the get go, red dog 1. The Police Dept should have been put on trial immediately. Damn, had I been Eric Holder, I would have been in the middle of it, starting on the next morning.

using federal hate crime laws.

... but since the Democratic Party has moved so far to the right, I just don't know if he will carry through. I hope and pray that GZ is convicted of this hate crime and has to serve many years in a maximum Federal Prison.

He was sued by the families of Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson and the jury awarded them more than $25 million.

His first trial just ended, but no telling how many he still faces.

does not mean they will ever see a dime of the money.

...including a set of golf clubs, his 1968 Heisman trophy, and a Warhol painting.

July 30, 2007 -- A federal bankruptcy court awards Ron Goldman's family 90 percent of the proceeds from the sale of the publishing rights to [Simpson's book] "If I Did It"
The rest will go to O.J. Simpson's creditors.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/12/us/o-j-simpson-fast-facts/

please note that I did not say he had paid none of it, just virtually none. as I recall at the time, he whined that he had no assets. gee, I wonder how much a set of golf clubs is worth?

Last edited Wed Jul 17, 2013, 02:28 PM - Edit history (3)

"Warhol's paintings have sold from the low 6 figures to the high 8 figures" (Wikipedia)

What is your source for your statement that 'Simpson paid virtually none", or is that merely your opinion?

Did you know that there were multiple judgments against him ordering him to pay (the Goldman family and the family of Nicole Brown.)?

between six figures and eight.

. . . .



In 1995, he was acquitted of the 1994 murder of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman after a lengthy and internationally publicized criminal trial, the People v. Simpson. In 1997, a civil court awarded a judgment against Simpson for their wrongful deaths; to date he has paid little of the $33.5 million penalty

. . .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O._J._Simpson



March 26, 1997 - The court orders Simpson to turn over his assets, including a set of golf clubs, his 1968 Heisman Trophy, and a Warhol painting.

November 20, 2006 - News Corp announces the cancellation of Simpson's book and two part FOX TV interview, called "If I Did It." The book was promoted as a hypothetical account of the murders.

March 13, 2007 - A California judge rules that the rights to Simpson's book will be publicly auctioned so that Ron Goldman's family can receive the future proceeds. The auction is canceled in early April 2007 when the holding company Lorraine Brook Associates declares bankruptcy.
. . . .

http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/12/us/o-j-simpson-fast-facts


O.J. Simpson shortly thereafter civil case verdict, moved to Florida. Owning a home and other property Florida law O.J. Simpson and Florida Statutory Law denied Brown-Simpson and Goldman families monetary collection of punitive damages awarded in the judgement against Simpson, out of the State of California.
Sun-Sentinel – ‘Simpson Moves On After Move To Miami’ – June 18, 2004 by John-Thor Dahlburg

“With daughter, Sydney, 18, and son Justin, 15, Simpson lives in a $575,000, three-bedroom, three-bath home with a pool. Under Florida law, it can’t be seized to help cover the $33.5 million civil judgment that a California court ordered him to pay the survivors of his former wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend Ronald L. Goldman.”

http://beforeitsnews.com/blogging-citizen-journalism/2013/07/florida-statutory-laws-prohibit-trayvon-martin-family-filing-civil-suit-against-george-zimmerman-naacp-request-doj-pursue-justice-2448364.html

so, if you have evidence that simpson, has, in fact, paid the judgment, please cite it.

I took issue with your "Simpson has paid virtually NONE of that money."

The fact is that the Warhol painting alone is probably worth at least $250,000.

I don't consider a quarter of a million dollars as "virtually NONE"; and it may be worth millions.
(We don't know the actual value of the Warhol painting).

Thanks for the additional information.
I didn't know about the Florida law, and I mistakenly thought his book was a best seller.

I think we agree on the basics here, i.e., that Simpson has, so far, paid very little of the $33 million dollar judgment against him

I don't consider an Andy Warhol painting as evidence that he paid "virtually none of that money", especially if it is worth more than a million, which is quite likely.

I think our basic difference of opinion is purely semantic..i.e., the definition of "virtually none"



.

... that the defense/prosecution's best chance of winning in the end is the picking of the jurors before the trial begins (or something to that effect, but you get the gist.)

I think it was all the more difficult this time, as there were only 6 jurors. I've been watching court TV since it's inception and I have NEVER heard of a panel of only 6 jurors. The prosecution should have asked for a change of venue. Plus, things would not have gone the way they did had there been at least 3 men on the panel.

You're right...they were a panel of GZ's peers, because GZ is a spoiled brat wimp. Who would have thought that those 6 women could feel sorry for poor wittle GZ. That trial was so screwed up that some are calling it the Trayvon Martin trial!

"Jury of one's peers" refers to the defendant. Zimmerman was the defendant.

But I hope you're right that this is not over with. We shall see.

I, myself, have trouble remembering who was on trial.

Let's keep an eye on "B-37" in the long run. I suspect we have not heard the end of this. Including her husband's perspective? Me thinks she may have been sharing information when she got home at night. Perhaps the judge ought to look into this.

... will be at 8 PM, EST tonight on CNN.

she was with the case in order to get on the jury.

and why does she keep bringing up her husband. he wasn't on the jury. i think they planned for this shit from the beginning and he may have been the one who thought up the whole thing.

i hope they feel like shit over not getting the deal and money they had in mind when they first got the jury summons . the money they thought more about over trying to get justice in that case.

... but upon reflection I think it's a bad thing for the justice system in general for a juror to profit off their experience as a juror.

But any profit from jury service, no matter what the case is and how it is decided, is a really bad idea.

Thank goodness we live in America where we have the court system to prove our guilt or innocence. Where people like her actually follow the laws and decide on that that then emotion. She is a hero to stand up for someone's right knowing the absurd outcry she is getting

she thinks this happened late at night, and stated that testimony about the scream came from the ME when it actually came from a character witness for the defense. I also think she has some connection to the defendant based on her referring to him as "Georgie." she totally gamed the prosecution in voir dire.

there Bud. Could you post something more coherent so I can figure out what your saying, besides you would "buy her book".

Thanks in advance for your cooperation.

Cognitive salad. Whose rights is she standing up for? Her own! Her right to make money off of someone else's misery. What a winner.

Sharlene Martin.

https://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/juror-b37-drops-trayvon-case-book-pitch-article-1.1400096

Mahalo, Play!

Thanks.

I don't think anyone should profit off someone's death. Even if GZ was found guilty, it's just PLAIN WRONG.

She wants to sell her story. I am confident that she has already started working with a ghost writer. There are probably other publishers who are seeking her out, with contracts ready for signatures.

The Twitter action merely created more attention to her book, which will then create more sales. Any effort to suppress something always creates more interest in it.