General Discussion

Rex

(65,616 posts)

102. But they didn't ignore anything, they were simply confused

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 12:25 AM

Jul 2013

and I believe decided to acquit since they were confused by the judges orders and the defenses instructions. I figured there was easily enough there for a manslaughter conviction. People here say the prosecution was horrible. What is the DOJ going to charge him with?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

145 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Would *you* ignore instructions to a jury? [View all] MannyGoldstein Jul 2013 OP

In this case, I would. Mr. David Jul 2013 #1

If he was on top of Zimmeman, straddling Zimmerman, then, in my view, Zimmerman could not have JDPriestly Jul 2013 #113

Just curious...what do you think the scenario was? Stardust Jul 2013 #126

I think that Zimmerman approached Trayvon Martin with his gun drawn. Trayvon tackled JDPriestly Jul 2013 #129

I agree with your theory, but the hoodie being 4 inches from the bullet Stardust Jul 2013 #141

Wrestling on the ground it could have wound up anywhere. badtoworse Jul 2013 #143

Yes NoOneMan Jul 2013 #2

As a juror you have the ultimate right to judge the law and defendant. ileus Jul 2013 #3

Not really. The function of a jury is only to determine issues of fact. The Velveteen Ocelot Jul 2013 #42

Once you're on the jury, it's up to you. Comrade Grumpy Jul 2013 #47

If you can't or won't follow the law you shouldn't be on that jury. The Velveteen Ocelot Jul 2013 #49

Right. Here, however, the jury, considering the length of the trial and the extent of the evidence, JDPriestly Jul 2013 #114

I know you're talking about the Zimmerman case, but... Comrade Grumpy Jul 2013 #131

This is true. However, juries sometimes nullify a verdict to reach justice. The prosecution or Honeycombe8 Jul 2013 #56

The reason the prosecution didn't appeal was because they couldn't. The Velveteen Ocelot Jul 2013 #58

I wondered about that. But they made statements in the documentary. Honeycombe8 Jul 2013 #61

Lies are not facts... lame54 Jul 2013 #62

It's up to the jury to assess the credibility of the witnesses. The Velveteen Ocelot Jul 2013 #70

Then they're suckers lame54 Jul 2013 #71

Maybe so. But that's the risk you run with any jury trial. The Velveteen Ocelot Jul 2013 #74

Technically the defendants story may not be entirely accurate but that doesn't matter. ... spin Jul 2013 #108

but the jury, like the voter hfojvt Jul 2013 #68

What if this jury "nullified" the law to acquit Zimmerman? The Velveteen Ocelot Jul 2013 #72

but you do the same thing with democracy hfojvt Jul 2013 #111

Post removed Post removed Jul 2013 #138

In order to deliver justice, I would "interpret broadly". nt Bonobo Jul 2013 #4

Sometimes you just have to do the right thing. Yes. n/t Avalux Jul 2013 #5

I wouldn't have to ignore those instructions because I don't believe Zimbo feared for his life. pacalo Jul 2013 #6

Bingo. He had a gun AND he knew the police were on their way. arcane1 Jul 2013 #10

That is Really the Best Argument On the Road Jul 2013 #52

With our alleged justice system? You bet I would. truebluegreen Jul 2013 #7

This message was self-deleted by its author TDale313 Jul 2013 #8

Message auto-removed Name removed Jul 2013 #9

As sad as it is, ctaylors6 Jul 2013 #11

No laws say "Did so and so do something stupid ... therefore murder." DirkGently Jul 2013 #12

I believe stupid->death is involuntary manslaughter MannyGoldstein Jul 2013 #18

Okay, but FL has that. DirkGently Jul 2013 #21

"Without lawful justification" MannyGoldstein Jul 2013 #38

I suspect that would be pretty universal. DirkGently Jul 2013 #50

culpable negligence DonCoquixote Jul 2013 #78

Yes. The duty of reasonable care. DirkGently Jul 2013 #84

That is what should have applied. JDPriestly Jul 2013 #119

Lawyers I have spoken to agree. DirkGently Jul 2013 #120

Do you think that Zimmerman could have pulled his gun out of his holster and shot JDPriestly Jul 2013 #117

Last one, because it's you. I don't know. DirkGently Jul 2013 #122

Yes, I believe in juror nullification. Raine Jul 2013 #13

I have sat on a Grand Jury... rexcat Jul 2013 #14

What state do you live in? nt MannyGoldstein Jul 2013 #15

SW Ohio rexcat Jul 2013 #124

I've been on a jury as well laundry_queen Jul 2013 #107

I support jury nullification. nt ZombieHorde Jul 2013 #16

What if that's how Zimmerman got acquitted? The Velveteen Ocelot Jul 2013 #76

The end result is the same. nt ZombieHorde Jul 2013 #97

Doesn't matter if Zimmerman feared for his life, mattered if that jmg257 Jul 2013 #17

it is the right of the juror to judge the law as well as the facts of the case. grasswire Jul 2013 #19

'Jury Nullification' is about refusing to convict someone for a law you think is wrong PoliticAverse Jul 2013 #28

Like what happened to O.J. Simpson? The Velveteen Ocelot Jul 2013 #43

I don't think they were nullifying the law against murder. n/t PoliticAverse Jul 2013 #45

This message was self-deleted by its author The Velveteen Ocelot Jul 2013 #48

No, it is not. A jury's function is only to decide the facts. The Velveteen Ocelot Jul 2013 #60

you are absolutely wrong grasswire Jul 2013 #63

I was a trial lawyer for 17 years and I taught constitutional law. The Velveteen Ocelot Jul 2013 #64

Have you never heard of jury nullification? grasswire Jul 2013 #65

I am quite familiar with it. I just don't think it's a good idea. The Velveteen Ocelot Jul 2013 #66

"I don't think it's a good idea" is quite different from... grasswire Jul 2013 #79

Jury nullification doesn't "stand between COLGATE4 Jul 2013 #85

What if the Zimmerman jury used nullification to acquit him The Velveteen Ocelot Jul 2013 #86

From one trial lawer to another - COLGATE4 Jul 2013 #82

Yeah, maybe I should give up and go to bed. The Velveteen Ocelot Jul 2013 #88

I hear you. Some days it's mind numbing. nt COLGATE4 Jul 2013 #93

Don't give up anomiep Jul 2013 #136

Zimmerman Ignored The Cops otohara Jul 2013 #20

In a heartbeat. forestpath Jul 2013 #22

I believe the jury is supposed to decide of a Just Saying Jul 2013 #23

This message was self-deleted by its author MannyGoldstein Jul 2013 #27

From the instructions given to the jury... PoliticAverse Jul 2013 #35

"reasonably cautious and prudent" RedCappedBandit Jul 2013 #37

CORRECT Skittles Jul 2013 #77

"a reasonably cautious and prudent person" wouldn't have been in Zimmerman's position Bolo Boffin Jul 2013 #41

In this case, Yes. BlueJazz Jul 2013 #24

If I was a juror, I would be prepared to do nullification to free someone, Nye Bevan Jul 2013 #25

That's a really interesting and moral take femmedem Jul 2013 #34

I am certain someone did fear for his life Skittles Jul 2013 #26

I would have thought that if Zimmerman feared for his life dflprincess Jul 2013 #29

yes G_j Jul 2013 #30

"�The danger facing George Zimmerman need not have been actual; however, hedgehog Jul 2013 #31

But only if they were sure, beyond a reasonable doubt, that MannyGoldstein Jul 2013 #33

A jury ignoring instructions is a jury making up it's own laws. badtoworse Jul 2013 #32

So you would have voted to acquit the Klan members Art_from_Ark Jul 2013 #87

Message auto-removed Name removed Jul 2013 #36

Yes, in this case and maybe others, too... Punkingal Jul 2013 #39

Like the O.J. Simpson jury did? It's called jury nullification The Velveteen Ocelot Jul 2013 #40

I think a guilty manslaughter decision could have been reached within the court's instructions nt arely staircase Jul 2013 #44

Yes, it could have been. nt Honeycombe8 Jul 2013 #59

Agreed; no need for nullification to convict frazzled Jul 2013 #99

In a drug case, yes. I would vote "not guilty." Period. Comrade Grumpy Jul 2013 #46

What if Zimmerman's jury ignored some parts of the judge's instructions The Velveteen Ocelot Jul 2013 #51

I believe the law cites whether a REASONABLE person would be afriad for their life. HooptieWagon Jul 2013 #53

Zim had the gun. He did not identify himself. Atman Jul 2013 #54

I would nullify so as NOT to send someone to prison. I wouldn't so as to send someone to prison.nt Honeycombe8 Jul 2013 #55

That's what I was thinking. NaturalHigh Jul 2013 #106

Yeah, diverging from the letter of the law in order to inflict punishment certainly.. JVS Jul 2013 #135

He knew he would win RobertEarl Jul 2013 #57

I haven't heard the instructions as they were given davidpdx Jul 2013 #67

you never know until you're actually in the situation. but i would hope i would do the right thing. orleans Jul 2013 #69

I think he lied enough to convict himself Quixote1818 Jul 2013 #73

I'm neither a lawyer nor a serious student of the law but jury nullification is a serious idea.... Rowdyboy Jul 2013 #75

No. The jury's function is to determine the facts and apply the law The Velveteen Ocelot Jul 2013 #80

I fully agree that your statement is accurate Rowdyboy Jul 2013 #89

it is our last defense against tyranny grasswire Jul 2013 #81

You can keep repeating it until COLGATE4 Jul 2013 #91

let me guess -- you're a constitutional lawyer too? nt grasswire Jul 2013 #94

I am a trial lawyer. I also taught some Con COLGATE4 Jul 2013 #96

I am wondering where all this libertarian claptrap is coming from. The Velveteen Ocelot Jul 2013 #95

Actually, my theory is that it's probably COLGATE4 Jul 2013 #98

no, the scope of the juror is the law via the judge's instructions nt markiv Jul 2013 #83

... alcibiades_mystery Jul 2013 #90

In this case probably not. rrneck Jul 2013 #92

considering he lied about what happened TorchTheWitch Jul 2013 #100

No. I have been on a jury in the past and I followed the instructions. ... spin Jul 2013 #101

How's that working for ya? n/t Egalitarian Thug Jul 2013 #105

In recent years it doesn't seem to make much difference who we elect. ... spin Jul 2013 #109

Watch the 1933 film Duck Soup. Floriduh is as it has always been. Egalitarian Thug Jul 2013 #115

I happen to like the climate in Florida. I grew up in the snow belt. ... spin Jul 2013 #125

But the clouds are so much prettier in the west. Egalitarian Thug Jul 2013 #134

It's a little too hot and dry for me out west. (n/t) spin Jul 2013 #137

But they didn't ignore anything, they were simply confused Rex Jul 2013 #102

Jury nullification? In a heartbeat. n/t Egalitarian Thug Jul 2013 #103

It's called jury nullification, it's not illegal, and it happens often enough. nt MADem Jul 2013 #104

Convicting people by ignoring the law is not jury nullification. JVS Jul 2013 #123

Ignoring the letter of the law when reaching a verdict is jury nullification. MADem Jul 2013 #128

That's wrong. Webster's has the following. JVS Jul 2013 #133

Nullification refers to ignoring the law. The person might be innocent, but be an asshole. MADem Jul 2013 #140

No. The standard was beyond a reasonable doubt. JDPriestly Jul 2013 #110

Reasonable is a very big word in a courtroom... cynatnite Jul 2013 #118

yes I would. liberal_at_heart Jul 2013 #112

No... cynatnite Jul 2013 #116

I would possibly engage in jury nullification for acquittal (particularly on drug charges) JVS Jul 2013 #121

Try Reasonable Doubt. elleng Jul 2013 #127

not to send a perso. away Niceguy1 Jul 2013 #130

Wouldn't have to ignore instructions to convict in my opinion. ornotna Jul 2013 #132

OP, have you ever tussled with someone 40 pounds lighter than you? Ash_F Jul 2013 #139

of course it can be. It all depends on the skills and what kind of shape cali Jul 2013 #144

I've done it - ignored an instructed verdict & hung the jury Justitia Jul 2013 #142

Juries are allowed to disregard what they do not find believable/credible Ruby the Liberal Jul 2013 #145