Zimmerman not guilty in Trayvon Martin death: Florida jury

[geriatrickid]

In respect to the Zimmerman injuries, a physician did not document the injuries on the night of the assault. An EMS worker reported what "might" have been a broken nose. The next day, when Zimmerman went to a clinic, he saw a physician's assistant. The PA recorded what "might" have been a broken nose, but testified at trial that without an xray it was impossible to determine if the nose was broken. Zimmerman declined to have an xray. He also declined to see a specialist ENT that was better able to respond to the reported facial injuries.

Yes, there were some pictures taken at the police station. There ware some head abrasions on Zimmerman. Even the smallest of head wounds will bleed profusely, so one should not assume that the injuries were severe because of the blood. Zimmerman never had his head injuries properly documented.

Maybe he did suffer the injuries and they were as severe as the defense claimed. However, the defense didn't have to prove that. All they had to do was to raise the possibility sufficient to create reasonable doubt. Counsel accomplished that. This is all that mattered.

I still think that Zimmerman was not thinking clearly on the night of the event. His regimen of drugs and underlying mental illness were factors. No one wants to touch this topic because it will upset the gun lobby and mental health advocates. In plain english, IMO I think a crazy guy was walking around with a gun.

[Jingthing]

Yeah and he STILL has a gun and can legally walk around with it. Of course NOW he has a REASON to be paranoid.

[Johpa]

Yeah, this case put a magnifying glass on some of the major issues in the American "justice" system. International people may wonder why all the attention about one case. Because it reflects on the entire system and indeed the society as a whole.

Yes, a magnifying glass was put upon this case. Alas this particular case was a very poor case to use to shine a light upon the "system" or the "society". The first problem for using this particular case for highlighting some of America's social racial issues was that Zimmerman was no racist but, on the contrary, someone who had an exemplary relationship with his black neighbors. He was indeed profiling Martin, but not based upon race. Look, I am a merchant with a brick and mortar store and I profile every young male entering my store who is wearing a hoodie. And although not every young male who is wearing a hoodie is up to no good, a not insignificant number of them are indeed up to no good because it is the fashion of choice for the young gangster wanna-be class. And that class is racially neutral; I get them white, brown, black, Asian, you name it and I just assume any young male entering my store wearing a hoodie is suspicious until I feel otherwise. Crikey, the protest march wearing hoodies really made me cringe. And I can't tell you how many times those youngsters wearing hoodies get overly defensive, a sure sign of guilt feelings, when they realize I have them tagged as up to no good. It is all part of the dysfunctional, if not sociopathic, urban American culture that has clearly long entered a post-racial stage. That is not to saying that race is not a major issue within the US judicial system, it is indeed and shining a light on the large numbers of Black men in prison, the disparity between sentences handed down to Black males vs. white males, and the entire and quite despicable corporate prison-for-profit industry is worth noting in the media. But given the available evidence, this particular case, this particular tragedy, was always a poor choice to turn into a cause célèbre.

[Publicus]

As per the above by Kuhn Kikoman who speaks of the "broken" US Court system", this is from the 1959 movie Anatomy of a Murder which was adapted from a book written (under a pen name) by a former Judge on the Michigan Supreme court:

Parnell Emmett McCarthy: Twelve people go off into a room: twelve different minds, twelve different hearts, from twelve different walks of life; twelve sets of eyes, ears, shapes, and sizes. And these twelve people are asked to judge another human being as different from them as they are from each other. And in their judgment, they must become of one mind - unanimous. It's one of the miracles of Man's disorganized soul that they can do it, and in most instances, do it right well. God bless juries.

But they are not being asked to judge another human being. They are being asked to come up with a verdict based on a plethora of evidence.

It's up to the judge to decide the sanctions.

Well maybe the former Justice of the State of Michigan Supreme Court who wrote the above musta been all mixed up when he wrote about his experiences being a judge and a county prosecuting attorney in Michigan and who was BTW the defense attorney in the real-life murder incident that became the basis of his book and the movie.

Juror B37, the juror who was embarrassed out of a book deal she had arranged, had been seeking a television movie, and has given television interviews with CNN etc, schemed her way on the jury by fabricating a self serving web of lies and deceit against the court.

Juror B37 is and always was an "acquittal juror" who, using the subterfuge of neutrality, and using the pretext of being unbiased and impartial, secured her position on the jury both to enrich herself financially and to allow "George," as she called him during a television interview, to get a way with murder.

Juror B37 must be investigated by the state's judicial authorities and the Florida Bureau of Investigation for juror misconduct, specifically, misrepresenting herself to the court as a neutral, unbiased juror when her true purpose was to get on the jury, first, to financially enrich herself and, second, to be an acquittal juror.

This juror may have sought membership of the jury to create conflict and drama in order to devise a good dramatic story line for Hollywood to grab and for publishers to jump at. Her campaign to lead the jury to acquittal, as she may see herself in her scheme, may have been conceived and developed with personal financial gain at the forefront of her every consideration once she had been called as a potential juror.

Justice is a serious matter that is central to the legitimacy and viability of any society. The integrity and credibility of the judicial process in Florida and of the jury system itself must be upheld in Florida and assured by the state's government.

Consequently, it must be determined whether Juror B37 had a hidden agenda, had ulterior motives other than the due course of justice. The proper state authorities need to conduct a preliminary inquiry into the question or to initiate action in accord with their established and proper procedures, to determine whether Juror 37 is a juror who should be fully investigated.

[brewsterbudgen]

Juror B37, the juror who was embarrassed out of a book deal she had arranged, had been seeking a television movie, and has given television interviews with CNN etc, schemed her way on the jury by fabricating a self serving web of lies and deceit against the court.

Juror B37 is and always was an "acquittal juror" who, using the subterfuge of neutrality, and using the pretext of being unbiased and impartial, secured her position on the jury both to enrich herself financially and to allow "George," as she called him during a television interview, to get a way with murder.

Juror B37 must be investigated by the state's judicial authorities and the Florida Bureau of Investigation for juror misconduct, specifically, misrepresenting herself to the court as a neutral, unbiased juror when her true purpose was to get on the jury, first, to financially enrich herself and, second, to be an acquittal juror.

This juror may have sought membership of the jury to create conflict and drama in order to devise a good dramatic story line for Hollywood to grab and for publishers to jump at. Her campaign to lead the jury to acquittal, as she may see herself in her scheme, may have been conceived and developed with personal financial gain at the forefront of her every consideration once she had been called as a potential juror.

Justice is a serious matter that is central to the legitimacy and viability of any society. The integrity and credibility of the judicial process in Florida and of the jury system itself must be upheld in Florida and assured by the state's government.

Consequently, it must be determined whether Juror B37 had a hidden agenda, had ulterior motives other than the due course of justice. The proper state authorities need to conduct a preliminary inquiry into the question or to initiate action in accord with their established and proper procedures, to determine whether Juror 37 is a juror who should be fully investigated.

And a re-trial?

[Jingthing]

There won't be a retrial.

I think the murder victim's family have the right idea.

Change the laws!

[F430murci]

In respect to the Zimmerman injuries, a physician did not document the injuries on the night of the assault. An EMS worker reported what "might" have been a broken nose. The next day, when Zimmerman went to a clinic, he saw a physician's assistant. The PA recorded what "might" have been a broken nose, but testified at trial that without an xray it was impossible to determine if the nose was broken. Zimmerman declined to have an xray. He also declined to see a specialist ENT that was better able to respond to the reported facial injuries.

Yes, there were some pictures taken at the police station. There ware some head abrasions on Zimmerman. Even the smallest of head wounds will bleed profusely, so one should not assume that the injuries were severe because of the blood. Zimmerman never had his head injuries properly documented.

Maybe he did suffer the injuries and they were as severe as the defense claimed. However, the defense didn't have to prove that. All they had to do was to raise the possibility sufficient to create reasonable doubt. Counsel accomplished that. This is all that mattered.

I still think that Zimmerman was not thinking clearly on the night of the event. His regimen of drugs and underlying mental illness were factors. No one wants to touch this topic because it will upset the gun lobby and mental health advocates. In plain english, IMO I think a crazy guy was walking around with a gun.

He does not sound like a crazed aggressive maniac during the last 90 second on the tape where he is trying desperately to obtain police intervention. His demeanor, tone of voice and the inflection of his voice are all very calm sounding. He does sound concerned and frustrated, but that is understandable after a rash (was it 8) of breakins in the neighborhood.

Mental Illness and drug thing:

Once again, we are back to uninformed opinions of a lay person that has no concept of expert proof, evidentiary standard or efficacy and therapeutic uses of certain medications.

If there was any validity to what you keep saying, the special prosecutor would have undoubtedly ordered an IME and could have easily had a paid expert to provide testimony of what you are saying. You can bet they looked at that angle carefully and spoke to multiple doctors and psychiatrists in an effort to develop that theory, but it did not pan out perhaps because Zimmerman's demeanor during tape and after incident does not corroborate this theory. Too bad prosecutors could not use you or one of these other blogs perhaps written by someone with a 9th grade education or a racial agenda to serve as an expert witness about mental illnesses. Unfortunately, US legal system is still in the dark ages and requires expert proof in the form of a professional with experience and background in the related field and does not permit speculative theories without foundation from blog writers to form the basis of expert opinions.

Edited July 19, 2013 by F430murci

[wealth]

Justice Department places 'hold' on Trayvon Martin trial evidence, including George Zimmerman's gun - which Florida law says must be returned to him

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2369592/Justice-Department-places-hold-Trayvon-Martin-trial-evidence-including-George-Zimmermans-gun--Florida-law-says-returned-him.html#ixzz2ZVFcuOY5
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

[Steely Dan]

This trial was the trial that keeps on giving. Instead of it ending with the jury decision we have Eric Holder setting up a hotline for anyone with any evidence against Zimmerman, which could no doubt be used in either a federal or civil trial. The reason for the conspicuously manufactured outrage surrounding the case is IMHO to deflect attention from sundry scandals attached to the current administration, which are indeed too numerous to list. A cynic might conclude that Zimmerman's acquittal was actually more useful than a successful prosecution would have been.

[F430murci]

There won't be a retrial.

I think the murder victim's family have the right idea.

Change the laws!

What law, the law that was not used . . .

Why doesn't Stevie Wonder boycott all 30 states with stand your ground laws (not argued in Zimmerman) . . . because that would impact his pocket book too much. Shows his real priorities.

RE: Stand Your Ground law in Florida:

Okay, change it. Funny part is that the law benefits blacks a bit more than whites . . . Once again, the public and people such as yourself believe anything that comes out of the NAACP or those angry at the system with a reverse racist agenda.

- African Americans used “Stand Your Ground” defenses at nearly twice the rate of their presence in the Florida population, which was listed at 16.6 percent in 2012.

- 133 people in the state of Florida have used a “Stand Your Ground” defense. Of these claims, 73 were considered “justified” (55 percent), while 39 resulted in criminal convictions and 21 cases are still pending.

- 44 African Americans in the state of Florida have claimed a “Stand Your Ground” defense. Of these claims, 24 were considered “justified” (55 percent), while 11 resulted in convictions and 9 cases are still pending. (Remember, African Americans constitute only 16.6 % of Florida population).

- Of the 76 white people who have used the defense, 40 were considered “justified” (less than 53 percent), while 25 were convicted and 11 cases are still pending.

- Ten Hispanics have used the defense, seven of them successfully, according to the database, which included George Zimmerman as a “Stand Your Ground” defendant.

- Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” cases have resulted in 78 white victims against 40 black victims, including Martin, and 10 Hispanic victims.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/16/blacks-benefit-from-florida-stand-your-ground-law-at-disproportionate-rate/?print=1

Edited July 19, 2013 by F430murci

[F430murci]

Juror B37, the juror who was embarrassed out of a book deal she had arranged, had been seeking a television movie, and has given television interviews with CNN etc, schemed her way on the jury by fabricating a self serving web of lies and deceit against the court.

Juror B37 is and always was an "acquittal juror" who, using the subterfuge of neutrality, and using the pretext of being unbiased and impartial, secured her position on the jury both to enrich herself financially and to allow "George," as she called him during a television interview, to get a way with murder.

Juror B37 must be investigated by the state's judicial authorities and the Florida Bureau of Investigation for juror misconduct, specifically, misrepresenting herself to the court as a neutral, unbiased juror when her true purpose was to get on the jury, first, to financially enrich herself and, second, to be an acquittal juror.

This juror may have sought membership of the jury to create conflict and drama in order to devise a good dramatic story line for Hollywood to grab and for publishers to jump at. Her campaign to lead the jury to acquittal, as she may see herself in her scheme, may have been conceived and developed with personal financial gain at the forefront of her every consideration once she had been called as a potential juror.

Justice is a serious matter that is central to the legitimacy and viability of any society. The integrity and credibility of the judicial process in Florida and of the jury system itself must be upheld in Florida and assured by the state's government.

Consequently, it must be determined whether Juror B37 had a hidden agenda, had ulterior motives other than the due course of justice. The proper state authorities need to conduct a preliminary inquiry into the question or to initiate action in accord with their established and proper procedures, to determine whether Juror 37 is a juror who should be fully investigated.

And a re-trial?

As I conceived of and wrote the above post, I expected the Zimmerman gang bangers to be banging away at their keyboard to try to dismiss my discussion of Juror B37 as lunacy and the most wild and crazy of all ideas they have ever seen, if not worse mischaracterizations of the valid, relevant and material questions Juror B37 herself causes to occur.

Already one poster is raising the false issue of a re-trial, which is impossible due to double jeopardy provisions of the Constitution.

More accusations should be expected of the Zimmerman gang bangers who may choose to respond to the discussion presented in my post, accusations or a summary and arbitrary dismissiveness of the legitimate questions Juror B37 herself presents concerning her conduct since the conclusion of the trial and the dismissal of the jury, as well as her motives and conduct once Juror B37 learned she had been selected to be included in the jury pool.

Why do you never address or mention what the Alternate juror (E54) said? Or he is a crazy gun banger with bad motives also?

[Publicus]

Yeah and he STILL has a gun and can legally walk around with it. Of course NOW he has a REASON to be paranoid.

Actually, because the US Justice Department has resumed its investigation of Zimmerman, a hold routinely has been placed on returning to Zimmerman his gun or any his own personal items used in evidence in the state's unsuccessful trial.

[Ulysses G.]

Juror B37 is and always was an "acquittal juror" who, using the subterfuge of neutrality, and using the pretext of being unbiased and impartial, secured her position on the jury both to enrich herself financially and to allow "George," as she called him during a television interview, to get a way with murder.

Sounds like a rather ridiculous conspiracy theory. How did she "trick" the state of Florida into calling her in the first place.

[F430murci]

Juror B37 is and always was an "acquittal juror" who, using the subterfuge of neutrality, and using the pretext of being unbiased and impartial, secured her position on the jury both to enrich herself financially and to allow "George," as she called him during a television interview, to get a way with murder.

Sounds like a rather ridiculous conspiracy theory. How did she "trick" the state of Florida into calling her in the first place.

Haha, that amateur male prosecutor that picked the jury only had like 385 jury trials . . . (incidentally, an unheard of number) . . . I would expect an amateur like him to be tricked by a women like her who has served on so many juries.

Pub ignores the fact that she did not serve as foreman. Strong personalities that can tend to sway other jurors in the deliberation room almost always end up being foreman, B37 was pretty benign which is exactly why both sides picked her.

Jury selection 101, you are always looking for personality traits of someone that may serve as foreman because that is the most critical juror and the one least likely to change their mind and capitulate when there is a dead lock. Although, I am sure Pub already knows all of this since he has picked so many juries and polled so many jurors after trials.

[Publicus]

Zimmerman is the gunman in this crime.

And the victim was just a teeny weeny little kid, or so some would like you to believe.

As far as I am concerned, the side that first starts to tell lies, loses.

End of.

Zimmerman never had to testify in court under oath. The Constitution allows this. Allowing this to occur is bad law.

Zimmerman's statements were the only statements relevant and material to the case that never had to withstand direct or cross examination by the attorneys of record and while under oath to the court to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Zimmerman was charged with murder. I'm certain he created a story favorable to him, exculpatory of him, and that the story was riddled with lies, distortions, exaggerations - predicated on a big lie.

I don't doubt it for one moment.

[kikoman]

Juror B37 is the weakest point of this miscarriage of justice, A "Not Guilty" verdict can not be reversed, As her TV interview on CNN is a matter of record, the News release by Sharlene Martin, President of Martin Literary Management, (represents Juror B37 in obtaining a book deal) stated that the jury of the George Zimmerman case decided he was not guilty.... due to the manner in which he was charged and the content of the Jury instructions.

Due to a state motion dated May 10, 2013 the state motion was granted by Judge Debra Nelson "No opinion evidence pertaining to George Zimmerman's guilt, innocence, nor "the propriety of his being criminally charged" Was allowed at the trial" as the Martin statement in a news release (is also a matter of record).

Juror B37 had already formed the opinion that Zimmerman should not have been arrested, if the jury decided that Zimmerman should not have been charged, "he effectively did not stand trial to determine his guilt or innocence, A Not Guilty by the jury can not be reversed, However, with the public announcement that at least Juror B37 had already formed an opinion that Zimmerman should not have been charged, suggest that the integrity of the trial had been compromised,

She definitely will be investigated, Her attorney husband may have coached her on how to be seated on the jury, as she made her decision on evidence THAT WAS NOT PRESENTED IN THE TRIAL.

Perry Mason, rebut that point, if you can.

Cheers:

[Publicus]

Rebut what I just said. But you can't, can you? You get to only argue one version of what you THINK happen. That's that.

They didn't present the theory to court because they didn't have strong evidence. So they presented another theory, which unfortunately for them was just as weak. That's how the criminal justice system works. Perhaps in the Kingdom of ROTC Pubicus, you can just throw in 10 different theories and ask the jury to pick one and declare someone guilty. This is the real world. Likewise, I can say aliens shot Trayvon Martin and that George Zimmerman is innocent. That's a THEORY but I don't have evidence. Understand?

@gl555

The prosecution did not present the theory of the case you said it presented and, moreover, that you erroneously said the jury rejected. Again, the jury never heard the particular theory because the prosecution did not present the theory in court or during the trial.

You are just plain wrong when you say the jury "didn't buy the theory." The jury never heard the theory during the trial. The jury did hear two opposing theories of the case. But the jury never heard the theory you said it rejected. How can a jury reject a theory it never heard during the trial?

You made a sloppy gang banger claim. It is a reckless claim pounded out quickly on the keyboard for the sake of making a post that is contrary. You struck out again, and again on a called strike three.

The tone and temperament of your posts has improved, as admonished.

However, the content continues to be vacuous.

Because the content of your posts is vacuous.

Also, I looked at my "Notifications" box yesterday and saw your username in six consecutive posts. I don't have the time or interest to spend 40% of my time or effort responding to your assinine [sic] stalkings.

[Publicus]

It's that your THEORY? Or do you have irrefutable evidence?

Per Kuhn Publicis: To bolster their theory that it was Martin screaming for help, prosecutors pointed out that the screams stopped once the shots were fired.

And if it was Zimmerman screaming for help up to the point he fired the shot, why would Zimmerman then need to continue screaming?

Because it wasn't Zimmerman shouting. Trayvon was shouting for his life. Zimmerman was standing in front of Trayvon with a handgun up against his chest, at his heart. Zimmerman then pulled the trigger. Heartless sob..

That's why.

Each of us is in a sense a juror too. I accept the prosecution's theory of the case, stated after the trial concluded, as fact. That's what jurors do both in a court of law or in the court of public opinion.

[Publicus]

Well you seem to overlook this: The Supreme Court has to be presented with a case from a lower Court and agree to take it. I can see how a prosecutor would want some variance or exception on self-incrimination but not a defendant. And the defendant in a criminal case is the only one who can appeal an adverse decision. So the scenario you present would never make it into the appeals system in the first place.

That's why.

Of course it would if a defendant appealed an adverse decision.

In the Jody Arias trial the jury under state law was allowed to ask the defendant Arias specific questions. Many questions. The only other witness in the murder trial (which concluded with her conviction) was the deceased.

Arias' lawyers can appeal this case on any number of grounds, to include the state law that allows jurors to become the equivalent of lawyers, the judge too. Is this function within the constitutional remit of a jury? Has the question been joined, tested, on appeal?

One could argue the state law violates the Fifth Amendment. Arias as I understand it was compelled by the state law to respond meaningfully to the questions of the jurors (presented via the judge), which might provide the basis of a challenge, or a basis among others of an appeal.

While Arias waived her Fifth Amendment rights, there would be many grounds on which to object to the state law in this respect, to include the Fifth Amendment.

There would be other cases in which the defendant invoked the Fifth but was convicted anyway. I know of several. What if in a trial for murder or manslaughter a convicted defendant who invoked the Fifth appealed and the appeal lawyers used an alleged violation of the Fifth as a basis of the appeal and lost at the level of the Supreme Court? Lost in the way I describe?

Arias' lawyers can appeal this case on any number of grounds ... I see. And are Ms. Arias' lawyers aware of all this or is this just supposition on your part?

BTW You haven't yet introduced into any of your arguments including future decisions of the US Supreme Court and possible Constitutional Amendments, the UN Arms Trade Treaty of 2013 on International Trade in Conventional Weapons. -That one's a real hum-dinger as well.

BTW2 way up above you were talking about circumstances where someone who was the only witness to the capital crime for which he/she is on trial could be compelled to testify regardless of invoking right to non-self incrimination. Now you are talking about an appeal in a case where someone refused to say something and they were convicted because what they said was held against them. Say what?

You confound yourself.

It's not my burden to get you out of your own contradictions that are based on your mangling a couple of posts I made into one incomprehensible post by you.

[Baloo22]

As per the above by Kuhn Kikoman who speaks of the "broken" US Court system", this is from the 1959 movie Anatomy of a Murder which was adapted from a book written (under a pen name) by a former Judge on the Michigan Supreme court:

Parnell Emmett McCarthy: Twelve people go off into a room: twelve different minds, twelve different hearts, from twelve different walks of life; twelve sets of eyes, ears, shapes, and sizes. And these twelve people are asked to judge another human being as different from them as they are from each other. And in their judgment, they must become of one mind - unanimous. It's one of the miracles of Man's disorganized soul that they can do it, and in most instances, do it right well. God bless juries.

But they are not being asked to judge another human being. They are being asked to come up with a verdict based on a plethora of evidence.

It's up to the judge to decide the sanctions.

Well maybe the former Justice of the State of Michigan Supreme Court who wrote the above musta been all mixed up when he wrote about his experiences being a judge and a county prosecuting attorney in Michigan and who was BTW the defense attorney in the real-life murder incident that became the basis of his book and the movie.

Juror B37, the juror who was embarrassed out of a book deal she had arranged, had been seeking a television movie, and has given television interviews with CNN etc, schemed her way on the jury by fabricating a self serving web of lies and deceit against the court.

Juror B37 is and always was an "acquittal juror" who, using the subterfuge of neutrality, and using the pretext of being unbiased and impartial, secured her position on the jury both to enrich herself financially and to allow "George," as she called him during a television interview, to get a way with murder.

Juror B37 must be investigated by the state's judicial authorities and the Florida Bureau of Investigation for juror misconduct, specifically, misrepresenting herself to the court as a neutral, unbiased juror when her true purpose was to get on the jury, first, to financially enrich herself and, second, to be an acquittal juror.

This juror may have sought membership of the jury to create conflict and drama in order to devise a good dramatic story line for Hollywood to grab and for publishers to jump at. Her campaign to lead the jury to acquittal, as she may see herself in her scheme, may have been conceived and developed with personal financial gain at the forefront of her every consideration once she had been called as a potential juror.

Justice is a serious matter that is central to the legitimacy and viability of any society. The integrity and credibility of the judicial process in Florida and of the jury system itself must be upheld in Florida and assured by the state's government.

Consequently, it must be determined whether Juror B37 had a hidden agenda, had ulterior motives other than the due course of justice. The proper state authorities need to conduct a preliminary inquiry into the question or to initiate action in accord with their established and proper procedures, to determine whether Juror 37 is a juror who should be fully investigated.

"Juror B37 must be investigated by the state's judicial authorities and the Florida Bureau of Investigation for juror misconduct, specifically, misrepresenting herself to the court as a neutral, unbiased juror when her true purpose was to get on the jury, first, to financially enrich herself and, second, to be an acquittal juror."

Where did you get her "true purpose"? Let me guess, from Daily Kos? Huffington Post?

The wacky-doodle politico's in Florida engineered a prosecution of Zimmerman and then failed at that prosecution. Now your solution is for the wacky-doodles to start investigating Juror B37 (why stop with B37? Why not all the jurors?) and then, most likely, engineer another unsubstantiated, politically-driven prosecution.

Face it; What you are advocating is simply revenge. The jury voted for acquittal and you don't like it. What's next? When ever a jury votes an acquittal, the state then launches retaliatory "investigations" against them?

[Thaddeus]

Zimmerman is the gunman in this crime.

And the victim was just a teeny weeny little kid, or so some would like you to believe.

As far as I am concerned, the side that first starts to tell lies, loses.

End of.

Zimmerman never had to testify in court under oath. The Constitution allows this. Allowing this to occur is bad law.

Zimmerman's statements were the only statements relevant and material to the case that never had to withstand direct or cross examination by the attorneys of record and while under oath to the court to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Zimmerman was charged with murder. I'm certain he created a story favorable to him, exculpatory of him, and that the story was riddled with lies, distortions, exaggerations - predicated on a big lie.

I don't doubt it for one moment.

The case should have never even gone to court in the form that it did, the only reason it did was because of pressure raised by certain influential individuals who wanted to triumph their cause, and through stealth and fabrication tried to make a case that wouldn't hold water in a swimming pool, and tried to get him found guilty of a charge that was never going to stick.

If you asked me should GZ be charged with manslaughter, and found guilty of that, I would say, yes, he should.

[JLCrab]

Well you seem to overlook this: The Supreme Court has to be presented with a case from a lower Court and agree to take it. I can see how a prosecutor would want some variance or exception on self-incrimination but not a defendant. And the defendant in a criminal case is the only one who can appeal an adverse decision. So the scenario you present would never make it into the appeals system in the first place.

That's why.

Of course it would if a defendant appealed an adverse decision.

In the Jody Arias trial the jury under state law was allowed to ask the defendant Arias specific questions. Many questions. The only other witness in the murder trial (which concluded with her conviction) was the deceased.

Arias' lawyers can appeal this case on any number of grounds, to include the state law that allows jurors to become the equivalent of lawyers, the judge too. Is this function within the constitutional remit of a jury? Has the question been joined, tested, on appeal?

One could argue the state law violates the Fifth Amendment. Arias as I understand it was compelled by the state law to respond meaningfully to the questions of the jurors (presented via the judge), which might provide the basis of a challenge, or a basis among others of an appeal.

While Arias waived her Fifth Amendment rights, there would be many grounds on which to object to the state law in this respect, to include the Fifth Amendment.

There would be other cases in which the defendant invoked the Fifth but was convicted anyway. I know of several. What if in a trial for murder or manslaughter a convicted defendant who invoked the Fifth appealed and the appeal lawyers used an alleged violation of the Fifth as a basis of the appeal and lost at the level of the Supreme Court? Lost in the way I describe?

Arias' lawyers can appeal this case on any number of grounds ... I see. And are Ms. Arias' lawyers aware of all this or is this just supposition on your part?

BTW You haven't yet introduced into any of your arguments including future decisions of the US Supreme Court and possible Constitutional Amendments, the UN Arms Trade Treaty of 2013 on International Trade in Conventional Weapons. -That one's a real hum-dinger as well.

BTW2 way up above you were talking about circumstances where someone who was the only witness to the capital crime for which he/she is on trial could be compelled to testify regardless of invoking right to non-self incrimination. Now you are talking about an appeal in a case where someone refused to say something and they were convicted because what they said was held against them. Say what?

You confound yourself.

It's not my burden to get you out of your own contradictions that are based on your mangling a couple of posts I made into one incomprehensible post by you.

Thank you. Lewis Carroll would be proud.

BTW Jury selection from My Cousin Vinny:

Prosecutor: Can you participate in an endeavor in which the ultimate decision might be death by electrocution... Ma'am ?

Little Old Lady: I think it should be left up to the victims' families, rather than the courts.

Prosecutor: Uh-huh. The defendants in this case are charged with robbing a convenience store, and then, in the most cowardly fashion, shootin' the clerk in the back. Now, if sufficient evidence is offered to prove these facts you think you could --

Lady: Fry 'em.

Prosecutor: She'll do.

Edited July 19, 2013 by JLCrab

[kikoman]

The Notsobright gang Fail to gasps the misconduct of Juror B37, Google Anderson Cooper CNN News, Juror B37 interview, Also Google Sharlene Martin's ( Juror B37 "literary agent") news release Juror B37 News release by Mrs Martin Also check out the States 's motion to Limit/Exclude Improper Opinion Evidence".

That will give you the reason for an investigation of Juror B37 misconduct!

Cheers:

Edited July 19, 2013 by kikoman

[Jingthing]

Another way of looking at this.

Yes the right wing glee about the verdict of a man packing a gun getting away with murdering an unarmed black boy is indeed nauseating.

It is a modern-day lynching party. And conservatives are smiling.

http://www.theroot.com/views/why-conservatives-cheer-zimmermans-acquittal

If Zimmerman is not a racist, you can't always make that claim about much of the American white right wing.

[FDog]

What would be the point of Zimmerman being compelled to give evidence? He could say whatever he liked as there is no one to prove he is lying.

The onus of proof is with the prosecution, and in this case, a deceitful lying prosecutor. Yet they still couldn't get a guilty verdict. So changing the law to compel a defendant to give evidence is just moronic.

As an outsider I find it very very odd and strange that juries can talk to media etc after a trial. That is just crazy, from an Oz viewpoint anyway as here anyone that spoke to a juror, or a juror trying to talk to media would be hauled before the court and have a nice free holiday at her majesty's expense.

Seems some on here are just throwing out their toys over this verdict, acting like spoilt little children who didn't get their own way. Newsflash, the jury listened to all the evidence, took direction, debated all the evidence for hours on end. Guess what, they found Zimmerman not guilty and all your posturing won't change that.

Tough, deal with it.

[Jingthing]

They did.

But he's still guilty as sin.

Just like OJ was.

[kikoman]

According to Juror B37 interview with Anderson Cooper that (3) Jurors favored acquittal (Juror B37 favored acquittal), (2) favored conviction for manslaughter and (1) favored conviction for 2nd degree murder.

All can deduct that the (3) juror's that favored acquittal influenced the (3) that favored conviction's to change their decision. As Juror B37 already had formed an opinion that Zimmerman should not have been criminal charged, and made a decision based on evidence not considered at trial>

Cheers:

[Publicus]

Juror B37 is and always was an "acquittal juror" who, using the subterfuge of neutrality, and using the pretext of being unbiased and impartial, secured her position on the jury both to enrich herself financially and to allow "George," as she called him during a television interview, to get a way with murder.

Sounds like a rather ridiculous conspiracy theory. How did she "trick" the state of Florida into calling her in the first place.

Most states, if not every state, create a potential jury pool from the list of registered voters. Before a petit jury trial can begin, the lawyers with the judge conduct voir dire (see and hear/speak) to select the petit jury to hear the case and issue a verdict.

Lawyers carefully screen potential petit jurors from the pool under the rules of procedure - this I know but cannot speak in specifics or detail of the process or protocol. The purpose is to finalize a jury both sides agree is mutually satisfactory, whatever that may mean in the particular case. Nothing in this is guaranteed, however.

One time when I was called to jury duty by an official notice via the mail, in a drug case involving a black defendant, I was identified by the defense counsel for summary exclusion from the jury because I was employed as a federal investigator. The nature of my employment constituted entirely sufficient grounds for the defense counsel in the particular case to instruct the judge to dismiss me, which the judge in this instance was obligated to do, and did do. (I was pleased to return to work to deal with my continuous overload of cases.)

As with any system, however, voir dire is not perfect. Because Juror B37 evaded all screening procedures, she surreptitiously secured a place on the jury of six.

I'm confident this is not the first time a juror with reservations and/or evasion was seated on the final petit jury. Nor will it be the last time. Which is why the state of Florida must investigate Juror B37 to hold her accountable for her conscious and willful false representation of herself and to improve the process and procedure to reduce the possibilities of a Juror B37 occurring again.

The interests of justice demand that this occur.

Edited July 19, 2013 by Publicus

[kikoman]

Juror B37 chose to be interviewed by CNN as part of their book writing plan, but when there was an uproar from the American public due to the shadow of doubt that her interview cast on an unpopular verdict, she quickly torpedoed the book deal and now states she no longer plans to write a book.

I do not know what the law is on jury misconduct in Oz, but in the U.S. is a very serious charge, that I know will be investigated by the powers to be in the State of Florida and the Federal government.

What is said on this forum, has nothing to do with the coming charges for whatever law was broken by the shameful acts of B37.

Cheers:

051013_motion_to_limit_opinion (1).pdf

Edited July 19, 2013 by kikoman

[gl555]

Who are you to say whether a law is bad or not? Are you a constitutional lawyer? Just because you don't agree with the verdict, you say the law is bad. In this case, the constitution of the United States. That's the most idiotic thing I've ever heard coming from someone.

You do not know what really happened there. You have no evidence whatsoever. Saying Zimmerman lied is your opinion, not fact backed up by evidence. In the eyes of the law, he was found innocent and therefore, in the eyes of the law, what he said was the truth. Unless you have real proof otherwise, everything else you say against him is just full of crap.

Zimmerman is the gunman in this crime.

And the victim was just a teeny weeny little kid, or so some would like you to believe.

As far as I am concerned, the side that first starts to tell lies, loses.

End of.

Zimmerman never had to testify in court under oath. The Constitution allows this. Allowing this to occur is bad law.

Zimmerman's statements were the only statements relevant and material to the case that never had to withstand direct or cross examination by the attorneys of record and while under oath to the court to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Zimmerman was charged with murder. I'm certain he created a story favorable to him, exculpatory of him, and that the story was riddled with lies, distortions, exaggerations - predicated on a big lie.

I don't doubt it for one moment.