HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Sheriffs Office Admits Ju...

Sun Jul 21, 2013, 03:28 AM

Sheriffs Office Admits Jurors were allowed unsupervised access during Zimmerman trial.

New Accusations Against Zimmerman Jurors As Sheriffs Office Admits It Allowed Unsupervised Access


Jurors watched television and movies, exercised at the hotel fitness center, and spent weekends being visited by family and friends.

Hold on a second. The Sheriff’s office did not take them away from their families, they had access to them over the weekend! However, they were carefully monitored to prevent jury tampering at least, right? To verify this statement, AI’s own Dr. Mark Bear contacted them, telling us:

Just verified with Heather Smith, from the Seminole Country Sheriff’s Office at 407-474-6259. She states, “Generally speaking, jurors serving on the Zimmerman trial were afforded two hours of visiting privileges with family of friends each weekend.” I asked what she meant by generally speaking,” and she states, “there were more opportunities afforded jurors but not all took advantage.”

It only takes two seconds for an inappropriate comment to be made to a juror by a family member inadvertently or otherwise to possibly affect the verdict, how they look at the case.

And, it turns out, there is evidence to find that jury tampering did happen, as Juror B37 discussed in her aborted book deal:

The potential book was always intended to be a respectful observation of the trial from my and my husband’s perspectives…

Her husband holding a perspective strong enough to write a book on the subject, given unsupervised access during the trial to his wife on the jury. Juror B37 has also admitted that the decision was reached with information not presented at the trial itself.

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.

Read more: http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/07/20/new-accusations-against-zimmerman-jurors-as-sheriffs-office-admits-it-allowed-unsupervised-access/#ixzz2Zf9LtlxF



29 replies, 4603 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 29 replies Author Time Post
Reply Sheriffs Office Admits Jurors were allowed unsupervised access during Zimmerman trial. (Original post)
Maraya1969 Jul 2013 OP
msongs Jul 2013 #1
Pelican Jul 2013 #2
Fumesucker Jul 2013 #3
JI7 Jul 2013 #4
Fumesucker Jul 2013 #6
HiPointDem Jul 2013 #8
Fumesucker Jul 2013 #10
HiPointDem Jul 2013 #11
Fumesucker Jul 2013 #12
HiPointDem Jul 2013 #14
Fumesucker Jul 2013 #15
HiPointDem Jul 2013 #16
Scout Jul 2013 #23
Fumesucker Jul 2013 #25
JI7 Jul 2013 #5
Skittles Jul 2013 #9
B Stieg Jul 2013 #13
bravenak Jul 2013 #29
HiPointDem Jul 2013 #7
ReRe Jul 2013 #17
Ford_Prefect Jul 2013 #18
ReRe Jul 2013 #21
Ford_Prefect Jul 2013 #27
Igel Jul 2013 #19
pintobean Jul 2013 #20
ReRe Jul 2013 #22
X_Digger Jul 2013 #24
ReRe Jul 2013 #26
Ford_Prefect Jul 2013 #28

Response to Maraya1969 (Original post)

Sun Jul 21, 2013, 03:43 AM

1. the defendant will NOT be requesting a new trial based on this information .... nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msongs (Reply #1)

Sun Jul 21, 2013, 03:49 AM

2. ha...

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Maraya1969 (Original post)

Sun Jul 21, 2013, 03:50 AM

3. If you want to keep anyone at all reasonable off juries then by all means treat them like criminals

How is it that some of us trust the NSA to do the right thing with all our personal information but can't trust jurors to do the right thing?



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #3)

Sun Jul 21, 2013, 03:54 AM

4. based on b37's own words she wasn't reasonable, and it's not the jury that is being

seen as criminal. it's the whole process and how this whole thing was done. from the failure of the racist police dept to this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JI7 (Reply #4)

Sun Jul 21, 2013, 04:00 AM

6. The apparent outrage over "unsupervised access" is what I'm addressing

I have posts up on DU from early on in the Martin story pointing out how the police department obviously wasn't interested in pursuing a case against Zimmerman so I'm familiar with that concept.

It's just odd to me that to a big extent the same group defending NSA spying on the public because we can trust them is now outraged that jurors were trusted to talk to their own families. I'm getting a big cognitive dissonance from the reactions to the two story lines.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #6)

Sun Jul 21, 2013, 04:10 AM

8. i don't trust the nsa or any jury selection process that results in the wife of a friend of the

 

defending attorney being on the jury.

the lax 'sequester' seems part & parcel of the whole dubious affair, from the cops' failure to arrest zimmy or collect evidence to juror b37's quick book deal with her lawyer hubby.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #8)

Sun Jul 21, 2013, 04:15 AM

10. The jury sequester doesn't strike me as all that "lax"

As I said in my first post, if you want reasonable jurors then you have to not treat them as criminals.

I think the rails were greased for Zimmerman, obviously a ringer on the jury is not good thing and I didn't intend to imply I thought it was anything other than wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #10)

Sun Jul 21, 2013, 04:19 AM

11. access to media and regular access to outsiders strikes me as not a sequester.

 




sequester v. to keep separate or apart.

In so-called "high-profile" criminal prosecutions (involving major crimes, events, or persons given wide publicity) the jury is sometimes "sequestered" in a hotel without access to news media, the general public or their families except under supervision, in order to prevent the jury from being "tainted" by information or opinions about the trial outside of the evidence in the courtroom.

A witness may be sequestered from hearing the testimony of other witnesses, commonly called being "excluded," until after he/she has testified, supposedly to prevent that witness from being influenced by other evidence or tailoring his/her testimony to fit the stories of others.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/sequester

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #11)

Sun Jul 21, 2013, 04:25 AM

12. In other words, treating the jurors as criminals that can't be trusted

I haven't heard about access to media by the jurors in this case but I haven't been paying close attention either.

Again, my original comment was more about the vibe of "NSA can be trusted but jurors can't" I'm getting from some people.

Personally I'd be more likely to trust jurors than the NSA.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #12)

Sun Jul 21, 2013, 05:07 AM

14. the case was deemed to be high-profile enough that there was a need for sequestration. i

 

think that's quite a reasonable and good thing. regardless of trust, juries can be influenced by media and the opinions of others -- and in worst case scenarios, by bribes and threats.

it has happened, so it's not just a matter of trust.

if a jury is deemed to need sequestration, they should be sequestered.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #14)

Sun Jul 21, 2013, 05:17 AM

15. I think I heard that sequestration was a response to privacy concerns on the part of jurors

Or jury candidates perhaps?

I've been rather distracted by real life just lately, haven't kept up with much online.

I think my point about treating jurors as criminals or potential criminals leading to a lower quality jury pool is reasonable. High profile case likely to be sequestered? Forget about it for most people, not that I'd ever get through the selection process in the first place or you either I suspect.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #15)

Sun Jul 21, 2013, 05:25 AM

16. i think it's true that if all jurors had to be sequestered, that would be a stronger argument.

 

but they don't.

high profile cases are more interesting than the jury duty i've done (traffic accidents).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #3)

Mon Jul 22, 2013, 12:03 AM

23. what a bullshit excuse.

the jurors were not treated like criminals. the jurors themselves don't have to do anything wrong to receive information they should not have during a trial. there are good reasons for sequestration of jurors.

and reasonable people know the importance of doing their civic duty of serving on a jury, and the necessity of following the rules. selfish, immature, irresponsible, unreasonable people are the ones who try to escape jury duty, and make snarky comments about "well, if you're not smart enough to get OUT of jury duty..."

that shit pisses me off. i was proud that i was picked to serve on a jury for a serious crime. i was honest in my answers to the questions asked by the prosecutor and the defense attorney. i would have served as jury forewoman, but i was the youngest juror, and someone who had served on a jury before was chosen to be foreman.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scout (Reply #23)

Mon Jul 22, 2013, 12:45 AM

25. The jurors could easily receive information they should not have even during "supervised" contacts

Someone could just blurt something out and it would be a done deal. Not to mention that with my own family members we can communicate with each other in a manner that others who do not know us would understand little or nothing of what we were discussing, I seriously doubt my family is unique in that regard.

I read here on DU that the original sequestration order was given due to concerns about privacy on the part of the jury pool, not because they might get information they shouldn't have.

Prisoners aren't allowed anything other than supervised contacts, in that way the jurors are being treated as criminals and it's quite clear that a substantial portion of DU trusts the NSA to do the right thing with their own personal information but doesn't trust jurors to do the right thing during a trial.

It was obvious from the very beginning that the authorities in Florida did not want to prosecute Zimmerman and I have posts up here in GD from that time saying just that.













Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Maraya1969 (Original post)

Sun Jul 21, 2013, 03:56 AM

5. O'Mara was saying how Zimmerman was frustrated with how people

viewed him even after the jury verdict.

in the eyes of the non racist americans and others will always be viewed as guilty.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JI7 (Reply #5)

Sun Jul 21, 2013, 04:15 AM

9. he set in motion the events that led to the death of an innocent teenager

he is forever guilty

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skittles (Reply #9)

Sun Jul 21, 2013, 04:29 AM

13. "A nod is as good as a wink to a blind horse"

George will continue to feel righteous about the outcome right up to the second when he again "stands his ground" and realizes that this time not only is the other guy armed but that he also has a bigger gun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to B Stieg (Reply #13)

Mon Jul 22, 2013, 05:51 AM

29. +100nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Maraya1969 (Original post)

Sun Jul 21, 2013, 04:06 AM

7. kr

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Maraya1969 (Original post)

Sun Jul 21, 2013, 05:25 AM

17. Yeah, that's another thing.....

K&R

..... That was NOT a SEQUESTERED Jury! If AG Eric Holder can't do anything with all the irregularities of

that case, then we're just totally out of JUSTICE IN THIS EFFING COUNTRY!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ReRe (Reply #17)

Sun Jul 21, 2013, 06:55 AM

18. Sadly Mr Holder so far has been almost worthless as AG.

Without belaboring the point, whether directed by higher authority or acting on his own judgement, he has ignored or down-played his role in civil rights, labor rights and voting rights issues in favor of low-level pot busts and so-called anti-terror investigations.

His office seems to ignore comment from groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center so I have little confidence in DOJ actions in review of this case. However I suppose a howling mob at his door might persuade him to redirect his attentions, one never knows.

I hope that the family will do something in the way of appeal, or that the ACLU or the Florida legal system will somehow notice the glaring faults in procedures during the case and act to correct it.

The President made some remarks which touched many and I respect his comments on it. Unfortunately he often seems to be a man of many great words but fewer executive actions. In my book unless you are going to walk the walk all the pretty talk, however thoughtful and sincere, begins to sound just a tiny bit like pandering to the crowd.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ford_Prefect (Reply #18)

Sun Jul 21, 2013, 11:48 PM

21. re: your last paragraph "pandering to the crowd"...

... is what we used to call "lip service."

Yeah, I agree about the Dept of Justice since Holder has had it. He's been too busy running stuff for the NSA/Corporation behind the scenes, and neglecting his duty as the Attorney General of the United States.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ReRe (Reply #21)

Mon Jul 22, 2013, 02:48 AM

27. Yes, but somehow "Lip Service" fails to capture the cynical quality I had in mind.

On the other hand, the classic RCA image goes just a bit too far.

I know we have only 1/2 the POTUS we voted for. I just wish sometimes it was spread around a bit further. It seems odd to say it but I can relate to how conservatives must have felt about Shrub on occasion. We get the words, the suit, the sincere smile, and once in a while the man shows up too. It is indeed the measure of how much government function and policy has been subverted to Corporate "Security" purposes. The 1% certainly are effective at getting what they paid for.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ReRe (Reply #17)

Sun Jul 21, 2013, 09:21 PM

19. Hardly the first post on this topic.

An online legal dictionary gives the general meaning of a term. For specifics, you need statutes and case law on a state-by-state basis. You can't let the general definition overrule the specific definition. DU's been given the specifics. People were kind enough in previous posts to cite the FL law and, for comparison, laws in other states.

FL law allows for unsupervised visits by family. There are requirements. So the family members had to sign a statement that they wouldn't discuss certain things. Media was still a no-no, active or passive. In this, Florida is hardly alone. While the suspicious stayed suspicious, the concensus of those who read the law and judge's orders/restrictions deemed them reasonable and what some wanted to be punishing the innocent for something they probably didn't do.

IIRC, the jurors also were allowed a call a day to catch up on family events. Again, nice statements pledging compliance with the terms of the sequester were required by the people on both ends of the phone, and the jurors had to answer certain questions daily concerning phone usage.

The jurors also get presumption of innocence. No evidence they broke sequestration, we assume they didn't. Suspicion and innuendo aren't evidence. Well, at least not of any wrongdoing by the jurors.

Oh, and notice that for B37 (?) the stakes are higher than for most. Her husband's a lawyer, and if he signed a statement under oath saying he wouldn't mention or discuss certain things and did, as an officer of the court he could be very nicely punished or even disbarred in addition to any other legal steps taken against him as a private citizen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Igel (Reply #19)


Response to Igel (Reply #19)

Mon Jul 22, 2013, 12:00 AM

22. Thanks for that info, Igel

I didn't see the posts you mention. I thought law was law and didn't know that it was so different in each and every state. Ha! Here we all felt sorry for the jury because they were "sequestered," and they weren't at all!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ReRe (Reply #22)

Mon Jul 22, 2013, 12:16 AM

24. Lots of folks get their legal knowledge from 'Law and Order' / 'LA Law', etc..

.. and have incorporated that 'knowledge' into how they think a trial should be ran.

One of the previous times I served jury duty, when the judge was welcoming potential jurors, he said, "Any fans of 'Law and Order'? 'Perry Mason'? (I'm dating myself here..) 'Matlock'? Well, everything you've seen on tv? Forget it, it's not what really happens in a court room. Don't expect attorneys to jump up and exclaim 'Objection!' every five minutes. It's going to be tedious, it's going to be boring. Expect the same question to be asked three different ways. But it's one of, if not the most important civil duties you can perform as a citizen."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #24)

Mon Jul 22, 2013, 12:50 AM

26. I served on a jury too...

... put a guy in jail for 10 years, who deserved every day of his sentence. Don't watch allot of "Law and Order." However, I'm still crying at the ending of show "The Closer." Got hooked on "Court TV" when it came out. I'm drawn more to the investigative side of crime.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Igel (Reply #19)

Mon Jul 22, 2013, 03:23 AM

28. Those may be correct as far as the letter of Florida Law is concerned.

Nor would it be the first time a murder case was run on the "American Plan".

That doesn't make it right, good practice, or as seems to have happened in this situation good law. One of the reasons we have a Civil Rights division of the DOJ is the uneven application of law in cases like this one. You may say that a Mule is a Horse under the latitude found in some legal practice and in some jurisdictions but that won't make it run like one.

As I see it the Judge, the prosecution and local Law enforcement all failed to do what should have been Justice due to local prejudices and accepted practices, and the undue influence of ALEC et al institutionalizing racism in the SYG law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread