General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe Sheriff's office allowed visitors access to the jury while they were sequestered
Ummm....what was the purpose of being sequestered????
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/07/20/new-accusations-against-zimmerman-jurors-as-sheriffs-office-admits-it-allowed-unsupervised-access/
>>>snip
This is a siren bell warning of jury tampering. And this is but one juror, how much was discussed with the other jurors. The failure to supervise has now resulted in a potential legal nightmare for the state of Florida, which can be held liable for failing to properly ensure an untampered jury. Add to it the money that juror B37 could anticipate from such a book deal, which would be worth far more if given a not-guilty verdict than otherwise, and we are looking at a potential post-trial jury payoff negotiated through the husband.
And the concerns over Juror B37 are far older than that apparent after the trial. In watching her jury interview, one finds a very concerning pattern. As discussed by legal expert Gail Brashers-Krug, a former federal prosecutor and law professor and who is currently a criminal defense attorney in Iowa:
She really wants to be a juror. She seems to be going out of her way to minimize the disruptive effect of a multiweek trial on her life. Jurors rarely do that. She is also taking pains to avoid saying anything particularly sympathetic to either side. Both sides tend to be very skeptical of jurors who are particularly eager to serve on high-profile cases. Often they have their own agendas, or are attention-seekers.
We find a juror with their own agenda, who managed to sneak her way onto the jury, with unsupervised access to an element harboring their own viewpoint and opinion, and who aimed to profit off of a non-guilty verdict. She had the means, by having access to her husband unsupervised. She had the motive, by profiting off of a book deal. And she had the opportunity by being on the jury in the first place.
Read more: http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/07/20/new-accusations-against-zimmerman-jurors-as-sheriffs-office-admits-it-allowed-unsupervised-access/#ixzz2ZbSmFy9D
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
panader0
(25,816 posts)I see legal trouble ahead for the state.
COLGATE4
(14,886 posts)was already discussed at length yesterday - it's not unusual or uncommon and certainly no indication of any wrongdoing. In addition trying to dissect the personality of a given juror is just playing sidewalk psychologist. Nothing is going to disturb the verdict reach in the trial, all wishful thinking to the contrary.
MjolnirTime
(1,800 posts)COLGATE4
(14,886 posts)
pasto76
(1,589 posts)that the state met their requirement to provide and maintain an untampered jury?
did you get your bar exam in a cracker jack box?
COLGATE4
(14,886 posts)am admitted to practice in all Michigan courts as well as the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan and the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Boudica the Lyoness
(2,899 posts)People can be so insulting here.
COLGATE4
(14,886 posts)wrapped up in their own (often idealized) version of events that it's difficult to have a rational conversation about what actually happened here.
DrDan
(20,411 posts)some here are so troubled that the jury did not confirm their personal verdicts that they will go to any extreme to justify a tainted trial.
I have seen every aspect blamed - unprincipled defense attorneys, a judge who prejudged, prosecutors who were throwing the case, a jury who were either "idiots" or out to personally profit, lying witnesses, etc etc etc.
Some of the "legal" analyses is simply comical.
It seems to me that there is a complete lack of knowledge about how our system of justice works - that it takes proof beyond a reasonable doubt to convict. That is simply ignored by so many who had GZ convicted before the first witness was called.
COLGATE4
(14,886 posts)In addition, this was not an easy case from the very beginning - that's why the Prosecutor didn't take it to a Grand Jury first. The State's burden in criminal cases is by design a very heavy one and, TV shows notwithstanding (I had one poster just now tell me to 'look at Law and Order' to see how things actually work) it's not supposed to be easy for them. This thing got so much press and play on TV and radio that most people had Z convicted long before he was even indicted. What actually played out at trial has no bearing for them.
spin
(17,493 posts)
Notafraidtoo
(402 posts)If you read a lot of his past post he is definitely pro zimmerman so i really don't see how simply calling it on him is a insult.
tumtum
(438 posts)brush
(61,033 posts)for an allegedly sequestered jury to have visitors during a trial.
This must be new law or something because doesn't "sequestered" mean no contact with anyone but necessary court personnel?
That doesn't sound right to me.
DrDan
(20,411 posts)I would say 2 hours per week is limited.
How do you feel about unsequestered juries? They have virtually unlimited family time. Do you question ALL of their verdicts as they obviously cannot be trusted to render unobjective verdicts?
brush
(61,033 posts)Otherwise they could be influenced by family members even with news from the media on the trial.
DrDan
(20,411 posts)and at the request of the jury who were concerned about their personal safety and privacy.
The rules are determined by the judge who allowed 2 hours unsupervised visited per week.
just more tin-foil speculation
brush
(61,033 posts)Just trying to get the facts straight on the sequestration.
So you're saying that there was no sequestration until the jurors asked for it?
"Nelson didn't decide until three days into the trial to sequester the jury after potential jurors voiced concerns about their privacy and safety."
http://www.wftv.com/news/news/local/zimmerman-trial-jurors-had-alone-time-family-durin/nYwNG/
The trial started on the 10th and this happened on the 13th - http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmerman-judge-orders-jury-sequestered-trial/story?id=19393828
brush
(61,033 posts)that a sequestered jury doesn't have to really be sequestered, they can have visitors during the trial?
You're a lawyer and you say this is okay to you?
WTF?
DrDan
(20,411 posts)COLGATE4
(14,886 posts)confinement. Judges permit visits to sequestered jurors all the time. There are always ground rules. Both the juror and visitors (generally only family members) must swear not to discuss the case. Most people follow the law very well. It's not the remarkable thing you seem to believe it is.
ksoze
(2,068 posts)This whole jury legal system is new to many who suddenly forgot civic classes.
Spazito
(55,494 posts)examples where, outside of this jury, it states the visits were unsupervised?
I found an example from Florida, same state as the Zimmerman case, where the jurors were supervised during the visits, it was the Casey Anthony case:
"The jurors lived under the watchful eye of Orange County deputies, who monitored them and transported them everywhere they went. They watched them as jurors made calls, used the Web and met with family."
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2011-07-09/news/os-casey-anthony-jurors-lifestyle-20110709_1_casey-anthony-jurors-murder-trial-karen-levey
onenote
(46,140 posts)being present:
From Missouri's practice guide for judges:
5. If the trial is going to be over a couple of days, some judges make arrangements for the jurors to have contact with their family in the evening. This will go a long way in keeping the jury's mood positive. This often can be done by arranging for a couple of hours where jurors may visit with their family at the hotel. The deputies should meet with the visitors prior to contact and instruct them they are not to ask the juror about the trial or discuss the case. Some judges provide that the deputies do not have to be present during the visit, but the jurors must always be under the supervision and custody of the deputies. See State v. Leisure, 810 S.W.2d 560 (Mo. App. 1991).
http://www.courts.mo.gov/hosted/resourcecenter/TJCB%20Published%20April%208.2011/CH_06_JurySeq_files/CH_06_JurySeq.htm
Having a guard stationed outside the room where the visit is occurring is sufficient to keep the juror "under the supervision and custody" of the guard.
The fact is that sequestration is almost always a matter falling within the discretion of the judge except possibly in capital cases. And the rules of sequestration are not rigid. The judge has the authority to design the sequestration as he or she wants.
Spazito
(55,494 posts)I was asking for concrete examples where this occurred, other cases. I thought providing a concrete example, as I did in my post above, would add clarity to my request.
The Judge does have discretion, that is not in question, at least not by me. Your post contains guidelines which a Judge may or may not follow. I was aware of these guidelines and actually posted that link in a previous post of mine.
onenote
(46,140 posts)but that it's hard to find descriptions of particular cases, the chances are that it just isn't that big enough a deal for anyone to write about it when it occurs.
Spazito
(55,494 posts)supervised, there are no examples showing that allowing unsupervised visits are common with sequestered jurors.
Interesting, isn't it.
onenote
(46,140 posts)See this report that characterizes the Anthony jury's visits with family as "private" and yet also says that the deputies are with the jurors 24 hours a day. Since we know that deputies don't sleep in the rooms with jurors, I interpret this to mean that even in the anthony trial sequestration didn't prevent jurors from meeting privately with their families in a "supervised" environment.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/06/22/florida.casey.anthony.jurors/index.html
Spazito
(55,494 posts)when it says:
"The jurors lived under the watchful eye of Orange County deputies, who monitored them and transported them everywhere they went. They watched them as jurors made calls, used the Web and met with family."
Surely you are not suggesting the deputies merely watched them, outside of hearing range, when they made calls, merely stood outside their vision range when they used the Web?
onenote
(46,140 posts)And that the fact that it is clear from the Missouri guidelines that some judges allow sequestered jurors to meet with family "without deputies being present" and that discussions in cases or even in media reports regarding family visits with sequestered jurors -- whether "supervised" or "unsupervised", "watched" or "private" or any other way they might be described is a pretty strong indication that what happened with the Zimmerman jury is not some inappropriate or even extraordinary event.
Spazito
(55,494 posts)they denote little as to whether a Judge used any, some or all in using their discretion in setting the terms of a jury's sequestration. Unsupervised does have meaning, does it not, in the context of whether the Zimmerman jurors were supervised or unsupervised during the visits of their family and friends? It is a valid question, is it not?
"The six women who acquitted George Zimmerman in Trayvon Martin's killing were sequestered during the trial, but Channel 9 learned those jurors were allowed hours of time alone with friends and family.
Channel 9's Kathi Belich confirmed the jurors were left unsupervised with guests at times, which WFTV legal analyst Bill Sheaffer said is more than enough time for a member to have said something that could have influenced a juror and possibly impacted the verdict."
http://www.wftv.com/news/news/local/zimmerman-trial-jurors-had-alone-time-family-durin/nYwNG/
ksoze
(2,068 posts)This jury was allowed two hours a week to visit family by the judge. This is normal for the judge to decide. That did not mean they went home or shopping or web surfing, they were visited under the control of the court. That website linked in the OP offers no exact proof of what the author considered unsupervised and you should provide proof of tampering to Florida officials. Supervised still means they certainly could whisper something in each others ear - sequestration is not about imprisoning jury's.
Spazito
(55,494 posts)I think it might help if you looked up the definition of "semantics".
ksoze
(2,068 posts)Because if it is this jury was meeting with family two hours a week - I agree, and it is normal and approved by the judge. If it was said to be "unsupervised", what you mean? Because if you think "supervised" is a guard sitting between a husband & wife or mother & kids, or between glass as in a prison - you are mistaken. The linked website of unknown origin in the OP tells nothing.
Spazito
(55,494 posts)maybe it would have been better to suggest you look up "antithesis" instead or in addition to looking up the meaning of "semantics".
Supervised vs unsupervised.
COLGATE4
(14,886 posts)provides that sequestered jurors may be permitted to break sequestration ("dispersal"
and be unsupervised other times at the discretion of the court.
1:8-6 Sequestration of jurors
(b) Following Instructing of Jury. Following the instructing of the jury by the court and during the course of deliberations, the court may, in its discretion, in both civil and criminal actions, permit the dispersal of the jury for the night, for meals, and during other authorized intermissions in the deliberations
Spazito
(55,494 posts)being allowed unsupervised visits. Given how it has been posited that it is normal for sequestered jurors to have unsupervised visits, it is interesting there is only the Zimmerman jury to be used as an example of such.
onenote
(46,140 posts)Except for those who want desperately to find some misconduct by the jury (as opposed to the jury simply making a bad decision) in this particular case.
As I've pointed out, the media reports on the one example you've cited --the Anthony jury -- are themselves vague and contradictory ("private" visits v. visits "watched" by deputies).
Maybe the point that should be taken from all this is that the Anthony case, if indeed the visits with family tood place with a deputy in the room at all times, is the outlier and deserving of media mention, while the cases where family visits occur without a deputy present are simply not newsworthy.
Spazito
(55,494 posts)as an oddity with regard to the Zimmerman jury and the unsupervised visits. There were no questions about the Anthony jury wrt family visits because they were supervised which is more the norm one might take from that.
"The six women who acquitted George Zimmerman in Trayvon Martin's killing were sequestered during the trial, but Channel 9 learned those jurors were allowed hours of time alone with friends and family.
Channel 9's Kathi Belich confirmed the jurors were left unsupervised with guests at times, which WFTV legal analyst Bill Sheaffer said is more than enough time for a member to have said something that could have influenced a juror and possibly impacted the verdict."
http://www.wftv.com/news/news/local/zimmerman-trial-jurors-had-alone-time-family-durin/nYwNG/
COLGATE4
(14,886 posts)for sequestered jurors to have unsupervised time during their service. I (and others) have said that it isn't unusual. The fact that the entire state of New Jersey has now made it their law (not 'guidelines') is an indication that unsupervised sequestered jurors isn't a problem. In fact New York State, which currently has the toughest rules for obligatory sequestration has completed a study which shows that there is no genuine reason for having sequestered juries in the first place. The study found no stastical difference in mistrials caused by juror misconduct between sequestered and non-sequestered juries. As for your latter point, you realize that, unless it's a very sensational case the mechanics of how the jury functioned aren't published. Sequestration is a practice that is not much in vogue these days - it's hard on the jurors and is also very costly. However a judge will almost be forced to order it if there's any indication that the lack of doing so will be used to appeal the verdict.
Spazito
(55,494 posts)and the limitations to be imposed upon sequestered jurors, I am unable to locate it.
As to the studies on sequestration, I have read some of them, they make interesting reading but are not relevant to what is being questioned in this thread, supervised vs unsupervised sequestered jurors.
Whether sequestration is or is not "in vogue" is also irrelevant to the question at hand. Sequestration was ordered in the case and the issue is unsupervised visits by family and friends.
COLGATE4
(14,886 posts)www.judiciary.state.nj.us/rules See Section 1:8-6 (Secuestration of jurors)
Spazito
(55,494 posts)which is what is being discussed wrt this case, it is general in nature:
"Sequestration of Juries
(a) Prior to Instructing of Jury. The jury shall not be sequestered in any action, civil or criminal, prior to the instructing of the jury by the court, unless the court, in its discretion so orders on its finding that there are extraordinary circumstances requiring sequestration for the protection of the jurors or in the interests of justice.
(b) Following Instructing of Jury. Following the instructing of the jury by the court and during the course of deliberations, the court may, in its discretion, in both civil and criminal actions, permit the dispersal of the jury for the night, for meals, and during other authorized intermissions in the deliberations."
It speaks to the court's discretion in very general terms and not to the restrictions that may be ordered when a jury is in sequestration. ie phone calls, family visits, use of the internet, etc.
COLGATE4
(14,886 posts)sequestered jury to be unsupervised at certain times. At all other times they are by definition under the court's (and bailiffs') supervision. During the time the sequestered jury is under the court's supervision the judge may order whatever restrictions (s)he feels necessary.
Spazito
(55,494 posts)the question still up for debate is whether it is usual or unusual to allow sequestered jurors unsupervised visits and given the dearth of examples outside the Zimmerman case, which has caught attention of the press because of the unsupervised visits allowed, one might surmise it is unusual.
COLGATE4
(14,886 posts)dearth of examples to cite to while the press is fixating on one given case. But, as I previously mentioned the dearth of examples is because there is a dearth of sensational cases given such coverage as to know whether unsupervised time was given to a sequestered jury. My sense is that sequestration is going to become less and less frequent. This is driven primarily by costs and by the realization that it really isn't necessary except in extremely high profile cases. And, even in the Z case as I understand it the jury was only given unsupervised time to be with family members. Hardly a wide exception, particularly since the family members are also sworn not to discuss any aspect of the case.
Spazito
(55,494 posts)Sequestration is relatively rare, when it happens it does catch the attention of the media and interested public. Two cases at hand in Florida are this one and the Casey Anthony case. One sequestered jury was supervised during visits and one was not. The media reported the details regarding the restrictions placed upon both high profile cases.
The question regarding unsupervised vs supervised remains valid as it pertains to this case.
To state "hardly a wide exception" is speculation on your part as, again, there is a dearth of examples showing that to be the case.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)jeez.
what rational person would serve on a jury then? count me out.
i'd serve on a jury but i WILL NOT serve a sentence in the process.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Putting them in isolation from their family would not be conducive to having them deliberate carefully. Their main feeling would be "let's get this over with and get out of here."
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)with less concern for the verdicts themselves than getting done.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)CreekDog
(46,192 posts)
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)
Dr. Strange
(26,058 posts)No more posts are allowed on this subthread.
Please read the Forum Rules.
MineralMan
(151,267 posts)Logical
(22,457 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)trial so much as making a buck off of Trayvon's death. It was very clear she had no sympathy for Trayvon.
COLGATE4
(14,886 posts)is not to have 'sympathy' for either of the parties. The juror is supposed to determine the facts of the case and then apply the law as indicated by the court. So far I've seen no indication that a juror, including B-37 did not do this.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)used the law in court. She had a book deal within a day which meant she wanted to make money off of the murder of Trayvon Martin. It was always George with this woman. Poor George is her call. Oh please it is very clear she was biased.
COLGATE4
(14,886 posts)other jurors got) so no mystery there. And I would bet that more than one of those jurors will be shopping a book deal (or TV appearence, etc.) before this is all over. She may well have believed that Z was not proven guilty since this is how the whole jury voted. If so, I would expect her to be empathetic to a person indicted for a crime for which they were later found not guilty.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Zimmerman.
COLGATE4
(14,886 posts)know if he was 'innocent' - I do know that a jury of his peers decided Z was not guilty. Doesn't mean I have any sympathy for Z.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)He was murdered by that monster.
COLGATE4
(14,886 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)A kid walks home from the store and this monster ends his life and he gets away with it.
COLGATE4
(14,886 posts)a case in court. But I accept the verdict. Six people sat for three long weeks and saw and heard things that neither you nor I were privy to. After that and sixteen hours of deliberation they decided that Zimmerman was justified under the law of self defense. That's how our system works.
Duer 157099
(17,742 posts)If so, and that jury decided against you, did you agree or disagree with the verdict?
COLGATE4
(14,886 posts)of professional ethics. But I have defended people whom I strongly believed were guilty. My job is nonetheless to 1) make sure that they get the best professional representation I can give them and 2) make sure that the State meets its burden in order for them to be found guilty. That's what makes the process work. And, on the occasion when I've lost a verdict - I'm human. Damned right i didn't agree with the verdict. Makes me madder than hell. But I accept it as part of the process we agreed to serve when we decided to do this for a living.
Duer 157099
(17,742 posts)You have defending clients that you strongly suspected were guilty, and when a guilty verdict was reached, you didn't agree with the jury?
Do I have that right?
COLGATE4
(14,886 posts)if a client is guilty. That's what we have a legal system for. My job is to give him/her the best defense I possibly can and make the State prove his/her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If I fail in my efforts I accept the fact that I didn't do as good as job as I should have by accepting the verdict. Means the system worked as it's supoposed to. Doesn't mean I'm happy about losing. But I'll tell you it's a hell of a lot worse if you have a client you believe to be innocent convicted.
COLGATE4
(14,886 posts)a personal indication that I didn't do as good a job as I should have. That's not to suggest I'm necessarily overwrought when someone I strongly suspect was guilty is in fact found guilty after having had a fair trial. I once defended a man who apparently took a prescription pad from the Emergency Room while there trying to cadge a couple of Percocets. It seems he then trotted down to his local pharmacy and presented them with his Rx calling for "5 pounds mofeen". The jury didn't find my arguments particularly persuasive and off he went. But it still pissed me off.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)If you have a client charged with a crime on the basis of evidence proving his/her guilt based on an illegal search, your ethical duty is to get that evidence thrown out.
I think I know what you are saying, but you cut a little rough there.
COLGATE4
(14,886 posts)pointing that out. Another good reason for not writing stuff late in the day.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)my breath.
arthritisR_US
(7,810 posts)now you know the definition of a bottom feeder
snooper2
(30,151 posts)
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)
I feel the same. But what this lawyer is saying is how all lawyers think, and they think the system "works." The system is skewed bent and mangled all over the place. And lawyers profit from it and have no incentive to change anything.
COLGATE4
(14,886 posts)1- SYG was part of the jury instructions
2- Many people try and make book (or movie or TV) deals after participating in a sensational trial.
3- Obviously she (like the other 5 jurors) voted to acquit Z. I don't therefore find it sinister that she felt positively towards him.
4- You have absolutely zero evidence that this juror was biased in favor of the Defendant either prior to or during the jury deliberations. Anything said by her after the jury had reached its verdict is totally irrelevant and in no way constitutes bias.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)The evidence is the interview she gave and the fact after she said no more interviews because she knew how she came off in the interview. Don't you think it is interesting that 4 other jurors distanced themselves from her remarks.
COLGATE4
(14,886 posts)that means). Maybe the other jurors don't agree with her, maybe they just don't like her, maybe they're afraid of getting hassled in their community. I don't know and neither do you. But trying to make some case about juror bias based on the fact that she went for a book deal just doesn't pass the laugh test.
malaise
(296,098 posts)the point that she refers to him by first name.
For the record there are many lawyers here on DU.
COLGATE4
(14,886 posts)Are you saying that a juror can't refer to anyone in the whole trial by their first name after the verdict is rendered? That that somehow proves bias? Well, perhaps one of the other lawyers on DU will agree with you.
malaise
(296,098 posts)was not listening.
COLGATE4
(14,886 posts)many people disagree.
COLGATE4
(14,886 posts)presupposition of how the case would turn out.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)had her mind made up when she got on the jury, and probably did it to make money on a book. she had no business on that jury.
chillfactor
(7,694 posts)that is a name of familiarity......not saying the juror was biased is beyond comprehension
COLGATE4
(14,886 posts)dispositive of something. As I said before, I don't find it at all remarkable that a juror would empathize with a defendant she believed to be innocent to the point, taling about him by his name or by a diminuitive. It's not evidence of anything.
chillfactor
(7,694 posts)no one I have ever served with called the defendant any name with such familiarity ..whether the defendant was guilty or innocent....."georgie" is way beyond the norm..and your own biases are the point here....
COLGATE4
(14,886 posts)it couldn't happen. I forgot about that rule. Thanks for your insight.
pintobean
(18,101 posts)I watched the interview and I must have missed it. I recall her referring to him as George, but not Georgie.
Pelican
(1,156 posts)People hear what they want to hear...
Kennah
(14,578 posts)Using Zimmerman and Martin, or George and Trayvon, or accused and deceased, would show at least some equality in the choice of words.
But using "George" and "that boy" does seem to show a bias, even though it's not enough to prove anything. I have not heard it myself, but I have read others here post they heard at least one juror, perhaps the notorious B37, use the phrase "that colored boy".
Maybe it's just me, but if I were deliberating on a jury I would like to think I would refer to those involved by terms that are less likely to bias.
COLGATE4
(14,886 posts)make something sinister about a juror describing a defendant whom the jury acquitted is just non-sensical. I don't find anything sinister in her referring to Z the way she did. I don't know her age - that type of thing is more common among older women. Perhaps that's just her style. Who knows? And again, bias is something occurs before or during the deliberative process. Once the jury has reached a verdict acquitting the defendant it's impossible to accuse a person of being biased based on the way they then spoke about the defendant. After all, they did vote to acquit him, probably a good indication that they saw things his way.
Caretha
(2,737 posts)I'm positive that juror B37 was an unbiased jurist, and she intently listened to the evidence till blood poured from her ears. And by GoD! that book deal thingy that occurred less than 24 hours after acquittal was a HUGE surprise.
You are such a good, honest, ethical attorney...could I get your business card?
COLGATE4
(14,886 posts)the jury reached a verdict. I don't find it at all remarkable that a juror who (like the other 5) voted to acquit Zimmerman may have wound up the trial with positive feelings towards him. Bias, as you keep trying to allege, occurs before and during the deliberation process, not after a verdict is reached. What evidence (underlined) do you have that this juror was biased during the deliberatiions? I know I've not seen or heard of any. And I'm really puzzled by all the indignation that a juror decided to persue a book deal. Jurors routinely tell their story once a trial is over. Other jurors at other times have made book deals after participating in a sensational trial. Why does this all of a sudden become grounds for condemnation? The real complaint seems to be that this juror, along with five others, didn't vote the way some people thought she should have. The rest is nothing more than window dressing for that.
brush
(61,033 posts)to tell blatant lies from the truth.
zimmy claims he was head bashed on concrete 20-30 times and walked away, and suffered only a scratch on the back of his head that needed a band-aid only for treatment.
Hell, Stevie Wonder can see that's a lie.
These were supposed to be non-biased adults making thorough deliberations on the evidence. These had to be the stupidest adults I know of to believe that crapola from zimmerman.
Want to know what happens when someone gets their head bashed on concrete just once?
Check out this link and get back to me:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023254619
COLGATE4
(14,886 posts)they are stupid? That's a great argument.
brush
(61,033 posts)that anyone who believes you can just get up from 20-30 head bashings on concrete and just walk away has to be one of the stupidest people walking the earth.
Yes. That's right, I said it. It's not a hypothesis. It's actuality. You must not have followed the link about the real person who bashed their head on concrete just once. It was an actual occurrence, not some made up lie to save his ass like the zimmerman story.
I know you want to believe zimmerman, but come on, use your common sense. Human heads and concrete don't mix.
And zimmerman also claimed to have been beaten in the face 35-45 times. Here's a link with photos of what beating victims actually look like.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3306770
If you want to really open your mind, check out the links and get back to me.
COLGATE4
(14,886 posts)adults spent three weeks listening to testimony about everything (including Z's injuries taken from Medical personnel), then spent 16 hours locked up togther sorting through it all and then decided that the State had not produced enough proof to find Z guilty of anything, can you? It's all "could have, would have, should have" now - which has absolutely zero effect on anything.
brush
(61,033 posts)Last edited Fri Jul 26, 2013, 01:15 AM - Edit history (1)
although I posted it several days ago, and you still apparently didn't go to the link that shows what happens when a human head is bashed on concrete.
It's okay, you and jurors can all keep your heads in the sand because you want to believe a known liar.
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)agenda of their own. One that is even worse than Zimmerman's because this sets legal precedent for other cases and sets the standard that it's legal to for others to do what Zimmerman did.
Zimmerman could have been a one-time occurrence, a single evil man committing a single murder of an innocent. Now he's the standard bearer, the example, the legal excuse, the how-to book for murdering black teenagers and getting away with it.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)All the kid wanted to do is go home from a store and he lost his life because of this murderer.
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)It was brilliant and quite deliberate and drove the point home in imagery. He was talking about having to provide our African American teenage boys with paths and avenues of success in our society.
But what immediately flashed in my mind was a young black teenager, just walking home from the store on a rainy evening on a path through his neighborhood, who couldn't even complete the path to his own front door. There was no avenue of escape, either. Because there was a predator with a gun who thought the child with dark skin and candy was a threat.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)heart. The President did a great job despite whatever the critics say.
Cha
(319,067 posts)
DevonRex
(22,541 posts) and to you, too.
We may be residents of the same state in about 4 years' time, you know.
Cha
(319,067 posts)decent responsible Gov in 2014!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023305233
I've lived in Florida, Devon, in the 70s and have gone back to visit from NY in the early part of this Century.. I like Florida its self. It's the people in Charge who need to go.
Ruby the Liberal
(26,664 posts)Sequester a jury but allow unsupervised visits? Really?
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Smoke? Fire? NRA?
hack89
(39,181 posts)juries shouldn't be influenced by good meals and pedicures.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)COLGATE4
(14,886 posts)with family. It means 1) they are kept from being exposed to coverage of the case on radio, T.V., newpapers etc. as well as by small talk with friends and neighbors and 2) family members are the jurors are sworn not to discuss any aspect of the case. My experience with jurors over quite a long time tells me that they take their role (and their oath) very seriously. This is a small effort by the court to make serving on a sequestered jury not such a nasty job that nobody wants to do it. And it's worth it.
chillfactor
(7,694 posts)Jury sequestration is the isolation of a jury to avoid accidental or deliberate tainting. Although sequestration is rare, publicity surrounding a trial and interested parties may interfere with juror objectivity; a judge may order that a jury be sequestered in order to prevent others from tampering with members of the jury through undue persuasion, threats, or bribes.
get that..."in order to prevent others from tampering with members of the jury through undue persuasion, threats, or bribes'...any contact with anyone else can result in tampering..how is it that somone who is supposed to be a lawyer not get that....
COLGATE4
(14,886 posts)Their family members? Throwing out stink bombs disguised as comment doesn't work on D.U. Please provide me with links showing the proof you have that someone tampered with the jury, and I will immediately forward them to the F.B.I. Put your money where your mouth is.
defacto7
(14,162 posts)... about 5 minutes. Subject of comment #90 - Jury sequestration. Response to comment #90 - prove jury tampering. Wow, you really are a lawyer!
COLGATE4
(14,886 posts)occurred why the great rush to talk about it as a (another) cause for sequestration? We were discussing the sequestration of the Zimmerman jury. Why would I have included 'jury tampering' in discussing the case. Obviousy the poster feels that it should have been included in my answer. I don't see the point unless the poster is alleging that the Z jury was tampered with.
Orrex
(67,111 posts)that's how Florida handles its foster care program, too.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)I'm sure the kids are lucky to get a Big Mac, much less a meal at the Outback Steak House. I live in a much more liberal state and it ain't that plush for the clients. BTW, the term 'tea party' is not being a political reference.
hack89
(39,181 posts)and there was no complaint, I suspect this is a routine occurrence and people are making a mountain out of a molehill.
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2011-07-09/news/os-casey-anthony-jurors-lifestyle-20110709_1_casey-anthony-jurors-murder-trial-karen-levey
We keep hearing that this is a violation of sequestration yet no one has actually presented any evidence that it violates state law. Sound more like a "if I ran the circus" argument then an argument actually grounded in law.
Spazito
(55,494 posts)with the point made "the jurors spent their time with only themselves and Orange deputies for company..." it tends to infer they were supervised during those visits.
It is at the Judge's discretion to set the sequestration limitations but those limitations can be questioned as is happening now.
hack89
(39,181 posts)then I will be concerned. No one has yet to demonstrate that this is out of the ordinary. In another thread, a poster found a state where such visits are codified and those regulations on sequestration are posted on an official website.
Again - mountain out of molehill.
Spazito
(55,494 posts)I thought I was clear on that point in my original post to you. On the issue of 'regulations' and the post by another poster, I believe I read the link in the post and it stated the following:
"Section 6.2 Judicial Practice Tips
1. If the jury is to be sequestered you should:
Bring in additional veniremen in order to be able to excuse those jurors for whom sequestration would be a hardship.
Plan on extra alternates.
At the beginning of voir dire, inform the venire that the jury will be sequestered and outline what that means, i.e., staying in a hotel in the custody of the bailiffs.
Emphasize to the venire that emergency messages and occasional "good night" calls are permitted (some judges will allow supervised "contact" visits, but this probably should be reserved for exceptionally long trials).
Tell the jury the estimated length of the trial; identifying the hotel in which they will stay depends on custom and security considerations-in metropolitan areas, the hotel likely will not be identified.
At the conclusion of the voir dire, give the selected jurors some time (preferably overnight or the weekend) to pack and report for duty.
Give the selected jurors a letter with telephone numbers to allow loved ones or employers to contact the court or the clerk in case of emergency.
Emphasize to the jury that they are not to discuss the case or view media reports, pending arrival for the beginning of trial. See State v. Williams, 515 S.W.2d 463 (Mo. 1974)."
Note it says "Judicial Practice Tips" and not Judicial regulations.
I believe this is the link that was provided in the other post, I stand to be corrected if this is not the site and would appreciate, if you can find it, the information and link to the site of the other poster you reference:
http://www.courts.mo.gov/hosted/resourcecenter/TJCB%20Published%20April%208.2011/CH_06_JurySeq_files/CH_06_JurySeq.htm
hack89
(39,181 posts)show me that it is entirely up to the judge's discretion, that it rarely ever happens, and that it has not survived a legal challenge in the past and I am right there with you.
Right now all I am seeing is "everybody knows" kinds of arguments. They are not convincing - one thing that the Zimmerman debate on DU has shown me is there is widespread ignorance of how laws and the justice system actually work.
I understand it is important to you to undermine the legitimacy of the Zimmerman trial result. Your feelings alone are not convincing to me.
Spazito
(55,494 posts)on the issue we are discussing. I provided a link, thanks for reminding me about that link, which shows guidelines (tips) not regulations.
I did my homework and provided an example, I look forward to your example on imposed regulations.
Oh, btw, about the Anthony jury's sequestration, they WERE supervised during family visits:
"The jurors lived under the watchful eye of Orange County deputies, who monitored them and transported them everywhere they went. They watched them as jurors made calls, used the Web and met with family."
Here is the link again to the article although I know you already have it as it was in your post on the Anthony jury sequestration:
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2011-07-09/news/os-casey-anthony-jurors-lifestyle-20110709_1_casey-anthony-jurors-murder-trial-karen-levey
hack89
(39,181 posts)the only people fussing about it are those like you desperately casting around for any reason to delegitimize the verdict.
When lawyers and other legal experts tell me it is improper then I will pay attention - so far that is not happening in the real world.
Spazito
(55,494 posts)got it.
hack89
(39,181 posts)the verdict is in - it will not be changed.
It is not a big deal. It will never be a big deal. Sorry if that truth is too hard for you.
Spazito
(55,494 posts)posting something that was inaccurate, to say the least. I simply responded. I don't think it's me trying too hard unless you think providing actual links to posted misinformation is "trying too hard".
It is a big deal.
hack89
(39,181 posts)that what was done was illegal or improper. That is how his conversation started. So far no one has done that. You certainly have not done that. I have seen nothing to indicate this is not a legal and common practice.
This is a tempest in a tea pot divorced from reality.
You may have the last word.
Cha
(319,067 posts)"did your homework" and no amount of red herring is going to change that.
Thanks! 'Google is my friend', lol!
Junkdrawer
(27,993 posts)Last edited Sat Jul 20, 2013, 03:09 PM - Edit history (1)
Not only jury tampering, but jury tampering announced on national TV as if it were normal.
frylock
(34,825 posts)or knows someone who knpws someone.
Spazito
(55,494 posts)A verdict late Saturday, a conversation with a high level producer of a morning show sometime between Saturday night and Sunday morning resulting in a referral from that producer on a literary agent and Martin Literary Management president Sharlene Martin. The juror had a conversation with the agent Sunday afternoon and signed on early Monday. Amazing, in both the very short time frame and the obviously immediate access the juror and/or her husband had to a "high level producer" either late Saturday night or early Sunday morning.
Then to find there were completely unsupervised visits with family and friends, 2 hours, once a week, did nothing to quiet the alarm bells, quite the opposite.
Edited to correct spelling error.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)
ChiciB1
(15,435 posts)and/or rumor spreading, but I DID hear on "some" program after the trial that "she" had been called for jury duty FOUR times before on other cases. She was dismissed from each of the past cases, and it was also said that she commented on the protests as riots during voire dire.
I protested here in Florida, and I didn't hear of ANY riots anywhere. Oh, forgot... those THREE black panthers! Still, is that not prejudicial? Wasn't it the judge who stated that those comments should not be taken into account regarding whether she could be selected? I thought that was odd for a judge to say.
But, I haven't looked or researched my comments as I'm not sure where I would find links like this. But I do recall hearing about the four previous events.
I just got a jury summons myself, the last one I got was 6 to8 years ago, not actually sure. It was quite a while ago anyway.
What are the odds of a person getting that many in a short time?
pipi_k
(21,020 posts)to get called a number of times in a short period of time.
Starting in 2005, I got called 3 times in 3 years even though I submitted a doctor's note each time verifying that I am disabled by a condition of long term duration.
I was amazed by the "duhhhh" factor there. I mean, who in their right mind is going to believe that someone who has suffered from xyz condition for nearly 40 years is going to magically be cured a year later (after the first and second notifications, I mean, in which my doctor even mentioned how long I've been disabled).
But whatever...I guess State workers aren't paid to think or anything.
Politicalboi
(15,189 posts)Fill out your return form in crayon. LOL!
pipi_k
(21,020 posts)and drench it in vodka for good measure...
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)yardwork
(69,364 posts)The juror thought that the killing happened late at night. It actually occurred at 7:15 pm. Worse, Juror B37 said after the trial, on Anderson Cooper's show, that Trayvon was shot late at night. She went into the jury with prejudiced against the victim and came out not even knowing something as fundamental as what time the incident took place.
Pathetic.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)davidn3600
(6,342 posts)A lot of their restrictions is based on an honor system. The government is not tapping their phones.
pipi_k
(21,020 posts)I suspect that if the verdict had come back "guilty", this issue wouldn't even BE an issue....
Horse with no Name
(34,239 posts)IF the jury had convicted...this would be grounds for the defense to say that their client didn't get a fair trial and probably would have granted a new trial.
Kind of a win-win situation here...
pipi_k
(21,020 posts)hadn't thought of it, but yeah...I can see where that could have happened.
brush
(61,033 posts)The killer most likely have to testify then. And there is no way he could explain away all the inconsistencies in his story(ies), the most obvious being about getting head bashed on concrete and just getting up and walking away — after shooting Martin of course.
FirstLight
(15,771 posts)but there seem to be several inconsistencies about this trail. Now that it is over, it is too late to call a 'mistrial' or is this now just left to the appeals process? or can the prosecution even appeal? 
in any case... this stinks to high heaven, that's for sure. but we all knew that Zimmerman had friends in high places going into this...
COLGATE4
(14,886 posts)No indication that Z 'had friends in high places' either.
Cheviteau
(383 posts)You're a lawyer. You wouldn't be Mr. Juror B-37 by any chance, would you?
Edit. You seem to know a lot about Zimmerman's circle of friends. Sorry the book deal fell through.
COLGATE4
(14,886 posts)
99Forever
(14,524 posts)... "factual" when some shyster is saying it?
The only people who tell more lies than lawyers is cheating spouses.
COLGATE4
(14,886 posts)But thanks for playing, anyway.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)I suppose if you call preferring honest people to lying bastards, "having some issues" then you are spot on.
pintobean
(18,101 posts)that the "bastard" has posted. I haven't seen any.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)How do you tell if lawyers are lying?
Words are coming from them.
pintobean
(18,101 posts)I have more faith in his character than yours. You dropped in here to call him a shyster, a liar, and a bastard, just because you didn't like what he posted, and obviously don't like his profession. I asked you to point out his lies and you declined. Your posts say more about you than they do him.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)... a flying fuck who you do or don't "have faith" in. Who the fuck are you that I should.
Just another anonymous mouth on the net, no different than 100s of millions other mouths on the net.
Go hump somebody else's leg.
pintobean
(18,101 posts)You do realize that you're also just another anonymous poster, right? You can dish it out, but you can't take it? Maybe you're somehow "special".
Pelican
(1,156 posts)It seems like you might melt, go crazy and then you might need the services of a shyster such as Colgate.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)... an internet psychologist diagnosis!
Very impressive!
Ruby the Liberal
(26,664 posts) kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)AFAIK it has never consisted of SOLITARY CONFINEMENT.
Much ado about nothing, IMHO. If you look, you will probably find that family visits are SOP for sequestered juries.
Spazito
(55,494 posts)CreekDog
(46,192 posts)Spazito
(55,494 posts)to set the terms and conditions of sequestration including visits with family being supervised, calls being supervised, etc.
Baitball Blogger
(52,344 posts)This is a community that only pretends to follow government process. If you had to show competency to hold onto a license to run government the way we have to do it to drive a car, their license would have been revoked long ago.
Listen, you are never going to see competent government process in this county. It is completely controlled by a network of good ole boys and gals that reach into both parties.
Only Liberals and Civil Rights organizers have a chance to change that.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)Spazito
(55,494 posts)they were not:
The jurors lived under the watchful eye of Orange County deputies, who monitored them and transported them everywhere they went. They watched them as jurors made calls, used the Web and met with family.
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2011-07-09/news/os-casey-anthony-jurors-lifestyle-20110709_1_casey-anthony-jurors-murder-trial-karen-levey
Rex
(65,616 posts) B2G
(9,766 posts)Take away their smart phones?
They weren't in prison you know.
Spazito
(55,494 posts)"All television, internet use, reading materials, mail, and phone calls were screened, monitored and logged by deputies to ensure jurors were not exposed to any trial information, or content related to the criminal justice system," the sheriff's office said. "Jurors were permitted to receive their cell phones once per day to check voicemails and make telephone calls in the presence of a deputy."
http://www.wtsp.com/news/florida/article/325620/19/Sequestered-Zimmerman-jurors-got-pedicures
Posteritatis
(18,807 posts)
Myrina
(12,296 posts)A dog n pony show to pretend that "justice" was going to be addressed. I honestly don't believe anyone (aside from the Martin family) ever intended for Z. to be prosecuted - let alone convicted - for his actions.
For shame.
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)The fact they bypassed the grand jury indicated that they were not entirely sure they could secure an indictment.
DJ13
(23,671 posts)A win might have called the Stand Your Ground law into question (even though Z's lawyers didnt use it).
iandhr
(6,852 posts)freshwest
(53,661 posts)As have been described in this 'sequestered' jury or the entire trial for that matter. Before, during or after. It was a farce.
defacto7
(14,162 posts)n/t
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)And if you throw in some of the other aspects of the trial, the fact that one of the defense witnesses was in the courtroom before he was called to testify on the stand -- and they have pictures of him sitting in the courtroom that day, and fact that the judge did not allow the prosecution to bring up racial profiling as a motive for the shooting, plus a few other odds and ends, it is quite obvious the entire trial subverted justice.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)would they "be held liable for failing to properly ensure an untampered jury" ?
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)Response to Horse with no Name (Original post)
bettyellen This message was self-deleted by its author.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)I think this is common. That article basically says nothing.
Tikki
(15,140 posts)verdict, that would be naive.
Tikki
felix_numinous
(5,198 posts)Is there not ONE honest lawyer out there who can take this case?
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)Cha
(319,067 posts)Jeeze.. what was "the sheriff" thinking?!
Runaway Juror!
Thanks Horse
Raine
(31,177 posts)freshwest
(53,661 posts)What's going to make this even harder to prosecute, is that the little circle of cronies are busy covering up right now, I bet. I'm thinking ENRON level of shredding.
These people are absolutely the most shameless gang I've heard of since those days. Oh, wait, that was before KBR and Blackwater.
Never mind...
JI7
(93,615 posts)noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)
another one who has some bad karma coming her way...just like her boy george.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)