Do the right thing ... Stand your ground ... Hang the jury ...

If they have to follow the law only. Let the law decide who's guilty since the jury isn't allowed to.

But in this case it seems they had to 'follow the law'. Maybe I missed something.

Pretty much anyone who has followed this case is either convinced he was guilty or convinced he was not guilty. Just being convinced is not enough.

Last edited Thu Jul 25, 2013, 08:12 PM - Edit history (1)

It's not because I think it's a good idea. And yes, it has worked very well in police states.

I've been taking MOOC law classes on Coursera to supplement the ones in my doctoral program. About a month ago I finished an International law class that was very interesting. Right now I'm finishing Common and Civil law.

If the camera showed the beginning of the incident up to the point where other people called 911, we would know if Zimmerman was guilty.

I don't wish to live in a police state but I feel cameras are often useful.

I think cameras are one of the many factors for this decline.

saying that they'd be the ones to interrupt a crime in progress, or speak up when someone's being a dick in public, or would stop to help if someone needed it.

She feels that he was guilty, but that as a matter of law it was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt. She wasn't bullied into voting to acquit, she believed it was the right thing to do.

OK---

I always found that interesting

Would you rather that jurors "go with their gut" feelings?

If there is insufficient evidence or reasonable doubt, you should not convict the defendant.

with trial by the media. The media could fly in some reporters and make a quick determination of guilt or innocence and sentence the defendant or free him.

Imagine the money, the time and the effort we would save.

If I was convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty, based on evidence presented, then I hang the jury.

If my gut says he is guilty, or I think he probably is but there is some reasonable doubt, then if I vote to convict I am going against a basic principle of American justice- that you must be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt to be convicted.

evidence that I was convinced beyond any reasonable doubt that the defendent was guilty I would find a way to pull the testimony and evidence together to justify a guilty verdict. If the jury came back hung, hopefully another jury would get a chance at the case.

I would try to persuade until it was obvious I couldn't, and then I'd cause a hung jury.

Of course, you can only persuade people who do not have an agenda.

Juror in some cases.

I've been on 3 murder juries. Believe me, by the 3rd one, it was getting pretty easy to see who wanted justice served, who really wasn't up to the task, and who wanted to "prove a point". It was pretty shocking, at times.

curious what the stats are. I think hung juries are as good as acquittal's a vast majority of the time.

They didn't want the first trial.

the ones who tried it were brought in from out of town. how good a job they did is up for debate, but I think they wanted and tried to win it. It wouldn't be in any lawyer's nature to do otherwise.

In fact some of those cops came across as hostile witnesses to the prosecution. I think the prosecutors may have erred in charging 2nd degree murder then trying a manslaughter Hail Mary at the end. They may have been better of just charging manslaughter to begin with and making the whole trial an attempt to prove that. but I don't think for a minute they would not try to win such a high profile case. If for no other reason they wouldn't want to be the losers of a high profile case. I also think the jury made the wrong decision. I listened to all the evidence and the judge's instructions and I believe they could have reached a guilty verdict on manslaughter.

Im convinced he's guilty of manslaughter at least.

I would have based on those 46 911 calls alone and who Zimmerman called against. He was the aggressor and Martin had just as much of a right to self-defense as "Georgie" did.

I live in Floriduh, but would not hesitate to do that.

In the great Smiths song "Panic" --

Maybe he was on to something?

Enough evidence to meet the reasonable doubt standard then no conviction. I don't do trial by media.

continue to pose questions until I got a clear answer.

If I felt that I could not walk away without a conviction, even of manslaughter, I would hang the jury.

I personally feel that there was more than enough physical evidence to charge Zimmerman with manslaughter at the very least.

it's a legal system.

The minute he left his truck after that kid after they told him to stay in the car, he lost all chance of claiming he was standing his ground or scared. If you are scared you run the other way.

It would have come down to that with me.

While I certainly have no doubts about your sincerity, and I definitely agree that prudence dictated that Zimmerman should not have left his truck, the laws concerning self-defense in Florida do not comport with those beliefs. Zimmerman's leaving his vehicle after the dispatcher stated is was unnecessary to do so, was neither illegal, considered an impermissible provocation under the law, or was determinative of who was the aggressor, whether Zimmerman reasonably feared death or serious bodily injury, etc.

Our system is intentionally designed so that the guilty should go free in order that we do not punish the innocent. Accordingly, a defendant is presumed innocent and the prosecution must meet a high burden for a conviction. I am most surprised and saddened that a liberal, democratic forum so suddenly favors a prosecution perspective. Although I understand the revulsion that Zimmerman may evoke to some people or communities, the slippery slope of ignoring the law or not demanding that the prosecution clearly meet their evidentiary burden, will undoubtedly lead to both the prosecution and conviction of more minority youth. The very rare case of George Zimmerman should not ultimately result in the incarceration of more men and boys like Trayvon Martin.

He was told, after he was out of the truck, that they didn't need him to follow.

If I believe he is guilty, but everyone else feels there's "reasonable doubt", it's hard to argue that there isn't reasonable doubt. But if I have no real doubt, and cannot see how they have any doubt at all, I'm probably going to hang the jury.

Let another jury take on the case.

Up to a point, at which point I become a cast iron SOB.

I'd hang it.

have to be a strong person to put up with the hate for not making a decision. I give this lady who showed up with Robin and told her side of the verdict. Lets face it she was in a no win position. Damned if she does or damned if she doesn't.

I might do so to acquit.

But a defendant's protections in law are not mine to take. So if I felt that acquittal is what the law says I would acquit.

On the other hand, if I nullified to acquit (say, if abortion became illegal and I disregarded that law) that would be me protesting the state, not me being a vigilante against an individual defendant, even if I thought her guilty.

To protest a law by sending someone to jail (a de facto violent act) would, to me, be the same as beating someone on the street with a bat because I, operating outside the context of law, thought they deserved it.

I do not view the criminal justice process as symmetrical, nor is it, nor should it be.

If you think someone is guilty of murder, would you hang the jury? Simple yes or no. Try answering the question this time.

The OP is sparked by juror B29, and thus implies a "letter of the law" versus "what I think is right" quandary.

Otherwise the OP asks if I would vote to let a murderer free because I love murder, or something. It wouldn't make much sense as a question.

If I thought someone was guilty AS A MATTER OF LAW I would hang the jury by voting to convict. Duh.

Juror B29 says that she thought Zimmerman to not be guilty as a matter of law which means that to convict she would have to nullify the law to convict.

So yes, it is the question.

Easy question.

Yes you KNOW (as a matter of law) he/she is guilty of murder. I should have never used 'think'.

So if you vote to convict just based on "thinking" a person is guilty, yes, that is nullifying the law in order to convict.

No matter what else you might be implying. "Thinking' means you've determined an outcome based on the evidence. Okay find, if you KNOW they are guilty, would you hang they jury.

I think it might rain tonight.

I am not sure beyond a reasonable doubt it will.

They are two very different levels of firmness in belief.

I can easily think someone did something, but still have some reasonable doubt- AKA maybe it did go down another way.

If I "KNOW", then that means I am sure beyond a reasonable doubt- then yeah, it is my duty to vote based on that even if it hangs the jury.

So you agree with me, thanks.

I think that juries are frequently confused -- often by the defense -- about the legal definition of what "beyond a reasonable doubt" means in a legal context. The emphasis is not on "doubt" or the total absence of it; the emphasis is on the concept of "reasonable." Meaning would a person of reason be led to a conclusion of guilt or innocence based on the evidence. This does not mean beyond all doubt. Obviously that would be a philosophically impossible category.

That jury would be more hung than John Holmes.

I second that.

Now having said that I think a guilty on manslaughter could have been reached in the Z case within the judges instructions. The jury blew this.

If the state can't prove it, you must acquit.

A jury is not the Jerry Springer Show.

GZ was the aggressor. He murdered TM who defended himself from a man who had stalked him through the neighborhood.

I would've been GZ's worst nightmare of a juror. Intimidation only makes me dig in my heels & I can go just as loud and ugly, just as quickly, as the one trying to intimidate me.

Not on a jury to make friends.

go with the evidence and try to convince the rest of the jury to do so as well.

There's been enough innocent people thrown in prison to know that it's not good enough to just think someone is guilty. In the Zimmerman case I think I probably would have held out on the lesser manslaughter charge at least, but I didn't watch the trial so I don't know for sure what I would've done.

Somebody who shot an unarmed kid. That was not in dispute in Zimbo's case. I would be perfectly OK with hanging the jury.

What I BELIEVE happened is we have a wannabe cop that tailed a youg black kid, after all the back and forth with cops and following the kid decided that he was going to confront him, Martin probably told him to kick rocks, macho man/phony bologna cop decided he was going to for the kid to stick around until the cops arrived, Martin told him to fuck off so dumbass tried to physically restrain Martin, Martin didn't tolerate it and was insistent about moving on, they got into a scuffle, next thing wannabe knew he was getting fucked up, starts either pissing himself scared when the worm turned on him and/or girded himself up as Dirty Harry on "a thug" and went for his piece and killed Martin.

That is what I BELIEVE. What I think was proven beyond plausibility, is not much. Based on what I currently understand, no I wouldn't hang the jury based on my gut or beliefs. Our first duty is to consider the accused to be innocent and to require the state to clear a high hurdle of burden of proof.

I'd nullify but cannot see myself convicting based on beliefs.

There was plenty of circumstantial evidence.

Most of the testimony was based on the liar's word and I would have not taken it into account. Didn't they watch all his taped interviews where he was shown to lie?

I would have hung the jury.

Who knows, anyone can end up in the defendant's chair if enough things go wrong in any situation.

The jury is entitled to facts but not all the context

only vote that the defendant is guilty if the evidence convinced me beyond a reasonable doubt.

As I think one can get. No disrespect

The duty is if you believe the prosecution crossed the RD threshold based on the instructions of how to interpret the law

It's designed to stop or severely limit your proposal. Civil court on the other hand, I'm totally with you

Yes, I agree with you

Please don't take this the wrong way. I think I agree with you if you mean "it convinced me..." Only if you honestly follow the judges instructions

Therefore I would follow the judge's instructions and consider the evidence. If I had a reasonable doubt I would have had to vote not guilty. Of course not guilty does not mean innocent.

Frankly if they just had the guy on anything else that would have given him some jail time, the country (and DU) wouldn't be so divided.

Anything. A weapon violation or friggin jaywalking. Something to get him some time, because I whole heartedly agree with the verdict, but something is rotten in Denmark. Everyone knows he wouldn't have gotten out of his car without that gun. And I've always believed he's never had his ass kicked before. And I know Trayvon was human and subject to all shortcomings of any human, but I won't speak ill of the dead. But no matter how it happened, it didn't go exactly the way Zimmerman said it did. But all we are left with as a result of all these circumstances is a weak-ass circumstantial case. Added to that a prosecution game plan built on emotion and a defense game plan of attrition. Ended by a judges instructions that were narrow at best.

I still gotta vote not guilty, because as the end of the day, nobody knows what entirely took place except the actors.

I carry on a regular basis.

I would not have considered there to be anything suspicious about a person walking in the rain while wearing a hoodie. To be fair, I don't live in a gated community with a high crime rate.,

But if I did notice someone acting in a truly suspicious manner while I was out driving, I would call 911. That would be the most I would do. I am not a cop nor am I a vigilante.

I carry a handgun for self defense if attacked by someone who intends to put me in the hospital or six feet under and has the capacity to do it. I don't go looking for trouble. The last thing I ever want to do is to have to use my snub nosed revolver for self defense and I doubt that I ever will have to.

So on that rainy night I would at the most have called the police and continued on my way. Had Zimmerman done the same, Trayvon Martin would be alive today.

you said with "I don't go looking for trouble. "

because if you do, you are going to find it. i have said that over and over again in these discussions.

My feelings about carrying a concealed gun or any weapon at all is "you don't use until you are prepared for someone to take it from you, hence you don't use it unless you are using it."

Personally I have never wanted to carry a gun for just that reason as I'm not the biggest guy in the room and I don't need a weapon for the little guys. But I have absolutely no problem with responsible gun carriers. In fact I think they save lives. But that's another thread.

is that your opponent may find your gun and use it against you. This elevates the level of a scuffle and increases the potential danger to both opponents.

That's why I try to be extremely polite when carrying my snub nosed revolver. If a conversation threatens to escalate into an argument, I will break off. If challenged by an aggressive individual I will do my best to leave the scene even if it makes me look like a coward to others.

Which is a good reason to leave the carrying to cooler ones

a firearm. Other people I know who have carry licenses have told me that they noticed the same thing.

Classes on concealed carry usually emphasis how much trouble you can get into if you misuse your firearm. Florida has stiff sentences for any crime involving a firearm including firing a warning shot.

and its not mine. I read it in the threads, but this is my take on it.

--

Make the accused take the stand in a self defense case and subject him to cross examination (with respect to the scope of direct).
1 The 5th amendment still needs to have some role there
2 but instead of the prosecution's burden to prove he didn't fear for his life. the defense should have some burden to prove that he did.

I'm not really on board with that yet, and not sure how it would have changed this case other than who might have called which witnesses on their behalf. ergo it might lessen the defense's attrition campaign.

If Zimmerman had to take the stand, I feel that the prosecution's chance of getting a guilty verdict would have increased considerably.

There were many weaknesses in Zimmerman's story and a good prosecutor would have been able to take advantage of them. Remember a prosecutor is a professional in the courtroom while a defendant is an amateur. It might be like putting a skilled golden gloves boxer in the ring against Mike Tyson at his peak.

I could be wrong but I think that some states do shift the burden of proof and require the defense to prove the defendant had good reason for his use of lethal force. I don't believe that the defendant is required to take the stand in those states.

And yes, the prosecutor would love to have them on the stand, but I wonder how the "scope of direct" rule plays into that.

I once asked could the defandant take the stand and the attorney just asked Zimmerman one question, "yell help!". Now that would have been dramatic if not damning to the prosecution. So, what could the prosecution do in cross with respect to direct of scope

I'm from Florida too. Love my home state

could have been analyzed by experts.

That may have been considered to be his testifying against himself and he might have simply screamed in a lower voice to confuse the results. I'm not sure that it would have proved anything but it would have been interesting.

there was any bullying going on) was hampering the jury process. But my husband and I have heard that people with advanced degrees -- professor types (we both have multiple graduate degrees and we are both Ph.D.s) are often not "permitted" into jury duty as lawyers on both sides try to keep such persons off juries. I have no idea if that is actually true. I would have loved to have been on the Casey Anthony jury for example, or on the Zimmerman jury.

I see that a number of members raise the allegation that the juror who originally favored conviction might have been bullied. I'm not quite sure what they are trying to describe. Disagreements with fellow jurors, even loud, aggressive or downright mean arguments, are well within the purview of acceptable jury deliberations. Your fellow jurors need not be likeable, no less earn your friendship or respect. Also remember that other intelligent, fair, honest and well-meaning citizens serving on the jury with you might have a deeply held conviction as to the guilt or innocence of a defendant that differs from your own.

As to the whether those with advanced degrees are chosen to serve on juries, the answer is "sometimes." I'm a experienced civil litigator in NYC. In certain matters, particularly involving technological issues, complicated financial dealings, etc., lawyers usually have no objection to, and often prefer, intelligent and educated jurors. In other civil matters, education would generally be evaluated as to the extent that such experience may prejudice a potential juror for or against their client. You can well imagine that in a complex corporate contract or fraud suit, a lawyer might perceive a MBA very differently from a MSW. In fact, I was chosen to serve on a jury in a financial fraud case in federal court in Weschester, NY. The matter was settled after jury selection.

Lastly, the simple fact that you would have loved to have served on high profile jury such as in the Casey Anthony or Zimmerman trial, would likely have rendered you objectionable to both prosecution and defense, and you would have been appropriately struck for cause. Anyone too anxious to serve is usually perceived a prejudiced and likely to ignore the facts or law at their discretion. This reasoning is similar to why lawyers such as myself almost never serve on a criminal jury. It's almost impossible to follow a judge's instructions or ignore proper objections when you have an understanding of the law at issue, but only entrusted to weight the facts of a case.

I, of course, feel Zimmerman was guilty of something, of at least manslaughter.

I also don't know how a person can disregard a trained professional's (9-11 operator) instructions and not have to be held accountable for their actions.

Due to that knowledge, and a personal investment in the case, of course I would've held out. I think Zimmerman killed a person.

But if I had no knowledge (supposedly) of the case and based on the way the case was presented, I really am I not sure what I would do. I might have to have agreed with this juror and say that I don't think they proved beyond a reasonable doubt that it wasn't self-defense.

I don't believe it was self-defense, but it's hard for me to say with 100% certainty that I would've definitely held out.

so I would use the evidence that was presented, plus one piece of evidence that was entirely made up by me.

any questions about the instructions. I know they had a copy of them, but does anyone remember them asking any questions about interpretation?

I wonder what significance that might have

The court replied by asking the jury to be more specific.

They never did; the next communication from the jury was the verdict.

If I think the murder occurred, then I wouldn't hang it.

If convinced of guilt beyond reasonable doubt, I'd vote to convict. If there was reasonable doubt, I'd follow the law and vote to acquit. If either vote hung a jury, that is the breaks. If either vote lets a murderer go free, that's the beaks.

They had to make a decision based on the evidence presented to them and based on the instructions from the judge. Just like the one jury said, she felt Zim was guilty but the evidence did support a beyond reasonable doubt verdict. The prosecution did a poor job on this one.

Well done.

Looks like I've had a couple of posts in this thread... Dump and run means ---none.

Far more interested in what others say about this.

I DO NOT back down. I have every detail of my argument covered and an answer for every question. I cannot be intimidated; I cannot be bullied. I'd hang that jury like a clothesline.

I served on a hung jury. It was an attempted murder case, and 10 of us were of the same mind as to the verdict - guilty of a lesser charge (assault), but we had two jurors who dug in and outright refused to (1) follow the instructions of the judge, and (2) to recognize that the law must determine the verdict, NOT personal opinions or that "the law is wrong."

Race was not an issue in the case itself (both victim and defendant were black), so I'm only mentioning the races of the two jurors to show how differently these two people came to their conclusions. The middle-aged black woman must've seen something in the 25-yr-old defendant that made her determined not to convict him of anything. No logical discussions about the judge's instructions regarding the law fazed her one bit. The 35-40-ish white man was a gun owner, and adamantly argued his 2nd amendment rights and the castle doctrine, which didn't even apply in this case, even after the judge explained that.

Hung jury. This poor guy, who lost his temper and stupidly shot his gun off in the heat of a family dispute, had to sit in jail for an additional 5 months before he could be tried again.

We deliberated, all told, for about 14 hours before giving up.

So, I've seen two people defy the judge and the law - separately, and without collusion - to intentionally hang a jury. As for me... had I been on that jury, I would've held out for manslaughter, not just to hang the jury, but because I believe he was guilty of it.

I don't care how long the deliberations take or how much the others try to browbeat me. I will not say fuck it and go home. I'll do my duty.

I absolutely wish she had hung the jury and am disappointed she did not, but I can only imagine the pressure she was under. I can respect that she can come out now to say this is murder and apologize to Trayvon's parents, it was very brave of her to do this. There are lots of villains in the Zimmerman case, this woman may have disappointed me but I believe that unlike many of the others she at least had her heart in the right place and she does not try to claim Zimmerman was justified. I may be disappointed that she did not hang the jury but I want to focus on the real enemies and I do not view her as an enemy. Juror B37 on the other hand, that is one juror who needs to be investigated with her book deal and attempt to profit from the verdict.

You can also use that right to shit on bad juror instructions from the judge. I'd do it in a heartbeat...

That is not how our system is supposed to work.

Sending someone to jail when they aren't proven guilty is wrong.

Every single one. What the fuck?

About the hunch. Ain't no fucking hunch that George fucking Zimmerman is a murderer...except to those who love the fact that he killed a black kid.

Given that or other pieces of evidence I was completely ready to convict Zimmerman. But I believe a person has a right to self defense if they are in fear of their life.

You give me nothing to hang a guilty verdict on, at least nothing reflected in Florida law.

Morally, maybe it's never right to kill a person even to defend your life, especially with a gun. I am sure there are those who believe that. That's a philosophical question, not a legal one.

Love it--- it's the biggest pile of shit defense ever.... White kid--Zimmerman doesn't even look up---Black kid--- he loooks up.

White kid---Zimmerman doesn't follow== Black kid, he follows.

Why does a person kill another? Either they want to kill or they are defending themself.

That is the burden, not who was the initial cause of the confrontation.

It's distressing that people can't comprehend the law as it reads. The irony is that there is condemnation of Zimmerman for vigilantism, yet all this support for what is basically vigilantism in declaring Zimmerman guilty.

Kinda tough for me to place absolute faith in a justice system which places 57 people in jail per hour for smoking pot.

Although I realize many people will simply follow the orders of the law, I'm not quite so dogmatic as to allow my own convictions be railroaded by a codified system in every circumstance.

I'm compelled to think of Alabama's state law circa 1855 which made it illegal for slaves to read. I'd hate to think that anyone who argues "the letter of law" as the only basis for a decision would apply that to a case attempting to convict a man of learning to read (but was can imagine that many different standards are held by them, regardless of their insistence that law codified law trumps all... but maybe they would.