Did any of you watch this? What did you think?
Personally I think it's too soon to already have a book deal and she doesn't sound like she really understood much of the case.
-
I've heard about her having a book deal, but nothing from her. I think it's too soon, but I'm also jealous because I want to write a book and get rich from jury duty.
-
Anderson 360, a news show by Anderson cooper on CNN.
-
@Mrs. Polish: ditto.
-
@Mrs. Polish: You would never do that off of the tragic loss of a young life though!
-
@Mrs. Jacks: Oh thanks Mrs. Jacks
I would have never figured that out even though I have seen Anderson 360.
-
@Raindrop: oh sorry I just assumed everyone knew, yes it's Anderson's show on CNN..
I am torn between being glad I saw it and wishing I didn't see it because she didn't really seem to be the brightest and said a lot of things that sounded like she didn't get it. She would refer to zimmerman as Georgie but would refer to Trayvon as "that boy" or "boy of color"
-
Thankfully her book deal has been canceled thanks to a flood of tweets to the publisher.
-
@Mrsbells: I'm happy the book deal has been canceled. I didn't see it but I've read some of the quotes from her and I was pretty disgusted. How can someone who hates the media then go out and try to get a book deal? She didn't seem too smart, but I guess that helps/helped the defense.
-
Who on HelloBee has ever served on a criminal jury?
-
@lisamarieloves: I never get picked. Nobody wants a pediatrician on their jury!
-
@lisamarieloves: I have always wanted to, but never get called.
-
@mrsjazz: Yeah if you watch the interview you would be so irritated and put off by her, so it's probably a good thing you didn't watch it.
-
@Mrsbells: more reasons for my blood to boil, oh, it must be Tuesday!
-
@lisamarieloves: i have never been on a criminal jury, i don't know if i am allowed since i have am taking the bar exam to practice law, i don't think they want lawyers or lawyers in the making on the jury
-
@plantains: yeah it made me angry but also sad, she didn't have even a basic grasp of the facts and mentioned that Trayvon was out "late" at night even though it was 7pm.. she basically admitted that they didn't follow the jury instructions at all
-
@Mrsbells: it is just so upsetting because it is clear that the outcome was decided long before this case went to trial. Ugh.
-
@Mrsbells: I read that she is married to an attorney. I didn't think she could serve jury duty because of this?
-
@Mrsbells: Surprising or not, lawyers are not legally precluded from sitting on juries in California and, most likely, all other states. In many states, even a convicted felon may sit on a jury. California is even considering allowing non-citizens to sit on juries. That being said, I'd never pick a law student to sit on a jury. Bahahahaha. For obvious reasons. What jury instructions did the juror say she failed to follow? I didn't hear which Instructions were even given to the jury.
-
@Mrs. Jacks: I would love a pediatrician on a jury!! I love smart jurors!!! Sadly, I've never been picked for a jury either!!!
-
@plantains: Yes that is how it appeared
@Freckles: Yeah I thought the same thing.. But I might be wrong according to @lisamarieloves: I guess she is techinically allowed to be on there but the prosecution could have struck her
@lisamarieloves: Well the jury instructions basically gave guidelines to follow (in order words a checklist) of criteria they had to meet to convict of either murder or manslaughter. But juror B37 admitted that george went to far and caused the death by going overboard and pursuing Trayvon but said they decided to go for not guilty because they thought his heart was in the right place. But for manslaughter his heart or intentions should not be the issue. she also talked about the stand your ground law as being a factor but that wasnt even part of the case at all!
-
@lisamarieloves:
This is an excerpt from HLN of the instructions on manslaughterIn order for the jury to find Zimmerman guilty of second-degree murder, the prosecution must prove the following three things, beyond a reasonable doubt:
Trayvon Martin is dead.
The death was caused by the criminal act of George Zimmerman.
There was an unlawful killing of Trayvon Martin by an act imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind without regard for human life.
Coming soon to HLN: Georgia v. Andrea SneidermanJurors are also asked in the instructions to consider the less included charge of manslaughter. In order for the jurors to return a guilty verdict of manslaughter, the prosecution must prove two things, beyond a reasonable doubt:
Trayvon Martin is dead.
George Zimmerman intentionally committed an act or acts that caused the death of Trayvon Martin.
The instructions say that "a killing that is excusable or was committed by the use of justifiable deadly force is lawful."The form gives jurors a detailed description of "justifiable use of deadly force," saying:
"At issue in this case is whether George Zimmerman acted in self-defense. It is a defense to the crime of Second Degree Murder, and the lesser included offense of Manslaughter, if the death of Trayvon Martin resulted from the justifiable use of deadly force.
'Deadly force' means force likely to cause death or great bodily harm.
A person is justified in using deadly force if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself.
In deciding whether George Zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you must judge him by the circumstances by which he was surrounded at the time the force was used. The danger facing George Zimmerman need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. Based upon appearances, George Zimmerman must have actually believed that the danger was real.
If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
In considering the issue of self-defense, you may take into account the relative physical abilities and capacities of George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin.
If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether George Zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find George Zimmerman not guilty.
However, if from the evidence you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that George Zimmerman was not justified in the use of deadly force, you should find him guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proved."
-
@lisamarieloves: I have. The suspect was being tried for firing a weapon. The story was that the weapon was fired, the police rolled up, and the suspect took off running. The gun fell on the ground during pursuit, and when they apprehended the suspect, he was unarmed. All the evidence was circumstantial, so we found him not guilty. After we gave our verdict, the judge told us that the suspect was currently being held to await trial on a murder charge. It was really interesting, and I keep hoping that I'll get called again, but I haven't yet! I think I'm one of few people who actually liked jury duty.
-
I just saw this- looks like the book deal is off, thanks to Twitter
-
@Mrsbells: I'm still not clear which jury instruction you are saying was disregarded.
@littlebug: I am so glad you had a positive jury experience. The ability to have a jury and then to serve on a jury is one of the things that makes our country great! And its even better when people appreciate those rights and take them seriously.
-
@lisamarieloves: The jury instructions states that if he intentionally caused the death and it wasn't justified he should be guilty of manslaughter. She basically agreed that it wasnt justified by saying "george went too far", is "guilty of bad judgement" and "should have just walked away", meaning he didnt HAVE to kill trayvon to save his life.. However they gave the not guilty verdict because they felt his heart was in the right place and feel he has learnt his lesson.
They basically let him off because they sympathized with him. atleast thats how she made it sound
-
@babynumber1: Yes i saw that and I was pleased that this juror wont get to profit from the death of Trayvon martin
-
I've never been on a jury, but I wish I had. I think it would be fascinating. My DH was picked last fall - he complained about it a lot at first, but he ended up thinking it was really interesting. I was so jealous.
-
@Mrsbells: If you did provide the correct jury instructions, such instructions state that "The danger facing George Zimmerman need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force." I don't think that the juror who provided the interview stated anthing about GZ's actions that did not fall into the specified category of conduct.
Even if a juror did disregard an instruction (which I have no reason to believe occured in GZ's trial based upon one juror's short interview), jury nullification is hardly anything new. Many of the verdicts reached in highly publicized cases are suspected to be the result of jury nullification.
-
@lisamarieloves: She expressly stated that she feels he went too far and that he could have just walked away from it. Which means killing Trayvon was not his only option. so that cannot be a justified killing for the purposes of the manslaughter charge if he could have walked away from it.
She also stated that in the beginning 2 of them believed he was guilty of manslaughter and 1 of them believed he was guilty of murder, but then without any solid reference to the law they convinced them all it was not guilty because he was just trying to help the community
And again her whole focus was not on the facts or even on the interpretation of the law but on her feelings, or rather sympathizing with his feelings since she felt his heart was in the right place. -
@Littlebit: Yeah I think it can get tedious having to sit through all the testimony. I would be fascinated too but I think its such a big responsibility
-
@Mrsbells: The juror stated that both parties could have, theoretically, walked away. In any event, the juror had no place giving an interview. Jurors aren't charged with interpreting the law and what they feel, post trial, doesn't matter either. Her application of the evidence provided to her, to the law provided to her, is what matters. Unless we talk to all 6 jurors, we can't know how that process went down.
-
@lisamarieloves: Anderson specificaly asked her if she thinks Zimmerman was guilty of something and she said yes guilty of bad judgement, and specifically stated that he went too far and didnt have to do that. which in other words is saying his intentional, unnecessary act caused the death of Trayvon which is manslaughter.
-
@Mrsbells: Again, I don't think any of your intepretation of the jurors interview demonstrates a disregards of the purported jury insturction. I love the discourse we are having the issue! I'm sure you get into lots of fun discussions like this in your law school.
At the end of the day, however, its trajic that a young man lost his life and no one can deny that our justice system is fascinating.
-
@lisamarieloves: Yes thats true we do get into discussions like this a lot... Thats the thing about law I guess, things can most often be successfully argued both ways.
Reply
Subscribe to our newsletter
- Google Plus
- Stumbleupon
- Twitter
- Facebook
- Pinterest
- Favorite0
35 comments