General Discussion

ChiciB1

(15,435 posts)

12. Ok, I Know This May Be Construed As Gossip

Reply to Horse with no Name (Original post)

Sat Jul 20, 2013, 12:42 PM

Jul 2013

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?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

198 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The Sheriff's office allowed visitors access to the jury while they were sequestered [View all] Horse with no Name Jul 2013 OP

WTF? panader0 Jul 2013 #1

Let it go. The question of visitation to the jurors COLGATE4 Jul 2013 #2

Sorry pro-Zimmerman guy, you aren't the decider. Maybe a sidewalk lawyer, though. MjolnirTime Jul 2013 #8

No, actually I'm a real lawyer. COLGATE4 Jul 2013 #32

so you are telling us professionally pasto76 Jul 2013 #43

Yep. And no, I passed the Bar in Michigan almost 30 years ago. I COLGATE4 Jul 2013 #45

Good for you. Boudica the Lyoness Jul 2013 #61

Thank you. People are getting so emotionally COLGATE4 Jul 2013 #67

+1 - thanks for trying to add some rational and reasonable comments DrDan Jul 2013 #87

Thanks. You hit the nail squarely on the head. COLGATE4 Jul 2013 #88

Boy you can say that again! (n/t) spin Jul 2013 #101

Colgate is pro Zimmerman. Notafraidtoo Jul 2013 #75

Colgate isn't pro Zimmerman, Colgate is pro law. nt. tumtum Jul 2013 #105

He's saying it's okay brush Jul 2013 #135

this is nothing new - sequested jurors often get "limited" family time - DrDan Jul 2013 #141

The visiting time is supervised I take it? brush Jul 2013 #142

you do realize that the sequestration started 3 days AFTER the trial started DrDan Jul 2013 #143

No speculation brush Jul 2013 #148

. DrDan Jul 2013 #149

Let me get this straight. So are you saying brush Jul 2013 #134

judge makes the rules surrounding sequestration to include limited family visits DrDan Jul 2013 #150

Sequestration doesn't mean solitary COLGATE4 Jul 2013 #155

Stor posting facts! You want to rain on the party? ksoze Jul 2013 #156

Could you provide examples of cases where sequestered jurors are allowed UNSUPERVISED visits... Spazito Jul 2013 #158

As the following info indicates, it is possible for a visit to be "supervised" without the guard onenote Jul 2013 #159

It seems I wasn't clear... Spazito Jul 2013 #161

Given that it clearly occurs as indicated by the guideline statement onenote Jul 2013 #162

Yes, it seems, outside of my example where sequestered jurors in Florida were... Spazito Jul 2013 #164

Even in your example, the descriptions are ambiguous onenote Jul 2013 #166

You will admit your interpretation is speculation as to what it might mean... Spazito Jul 2013 #169

My point is that relying on news accounts doesn't provide much clarity onenote Jul 2013 #171

Guidelines are simply that, guidelines... Spazito Jul 2013 #175

You are getting caught up in semantics ksoze Jul 2013 #160

Supervised visits vs unsupervised visits is not semantics... Spazito Jul 2013 #165

Thank you grammer patrol. How about you review what you are trying to say ksoze Jul 2013 #170

lol, I see you didn't look up the meaning... Spazito Jul 2013 #172

For example: New Jersey in its Court Rules (1:8) COLGATE4 Jul 2013 #163

Again, guidelines, guidelines are not examples of actual sequestered jurors.... Spazito Jul 2013 #168

Given that its apparently no big deal I wouldn't expect to find examples onenote Jul 2013 #173

It seems others don't take that view given it did hit the news... Spazito Jul 2013 #177

It hasn't been posited that it is normal COLGATE4 Jul 2013 #190

Could you provide a link to the New Jersey law regarding sequestration... Spazito Jul 2013 #191

See below COLGATE4 Jul 2013 #193

That law is not related to supervised vs unsupervised... Spazito Jul 2013 #194

It allows the court's discretion to permit a COLGATE4 Jul 2013 #195

The question of the court's discretion has already been widely agreed to in this thread... Spazito Jul 2013 #196

I don't disagree with your assertion that there is a COLGATE4 Jul 2013 #197

The unsupervised visits in this case was extended to friends as well... Spazito Jul 2013 #198

you're saying the juror can't be alone with their family members or spouse or children? CreekDog Jul 2013 #174

Can you imagine? jberryhill Jul 2013 #179

yes, I agree that it might influence them to get it over with and support quick verdicts CreekDog Jul 2013 #180

We agreed on something! jberryhill Jul 2013 #183

this points to the need to be sequestered from you CreekDog Jul 2013 #185

Not even a conjugal visit? jberryhill Jul 2013 #186

Locking. Dr. Strange Jul 2013 #192

Insulting a DUer? Crass. MineralMan Jul 2013 #85

LOL, that does not help your argument. n-t Logical Jul 2013 #55

I think it shows how that juror b37 was able to get a bookdeal so fast. Her mind was not on the hrmjustin Jul 2013 #38

Pure speculation on your part. A juror's job COLGATE4 Jul 2013 #54

Excuse me but this woman showed no sympathy for Trayvon at all. She mentioned SYG when they never hrmjustin Jul 2013 #56

SYG was in the jury instructions she (and all the COLGATE4 Jul 2013 #57

Trayvon was innocent. Anyone with a heart should have their sympathy with him and not hrmjustin Jul 2013 #58

I have all the sympathy in the world for him. I don't COLGATE4 Jul 2013 #59

There is no evidence that Trayvon did any thing wrong. Of course he is innocent. hrmjustin Jul 2013 #62

That's not what the jury found. nt COLGATE4 Jul 2013 #64

The jury was wrong. Have you never disagreed with a jury? hrmjustin Jul 2013 #65

I've disagreed with a jury every time I lose COLGATE4 Jul 2013 #68

As an attorney, have you ever had to defend a client you knew was guilty? Duer 157099 Jul 2013 #71

That I've KNOWN guilty, no. That is a violation COLGATE4 Jul 2013 #76

So, if I'm understanding you: Duer 157099 Jul 2013 #77

You have it right. It's not my job to determine COLGATE4 Jul 2013 #81

I take an adverse verdict by the jury as COLGATE4 Jul 2013 #189

You might trim that in a little bit jberryhill Jul 2013 #181

You're absolutely correct. Thanks for COLGATE4 Jul 2013 #188

I understand that and accept that but I do not have to like it and I will rail against it with all hrmjustin Jul 2013 #72

Pssst... arthritisR_US Jul 2013 #132

North Korea has a real cool legal system, no bottom feeders allowed! snooper2 Jul 2013 #167

good statement marions ghost Jul 2013 #136

Once again - COLGATE4 Jul 2013 #124

She had a book deal 24 hours after the verdict. She was a money grubber. hrmjustin Jul 2013 #126

No, I don't think it's 'interesting' (whatever COLGATE4 Jul 2013 #146

A juror is also not supposed to demonstrate bias for the defendant to malaise Jul 2013 #74

You keep repeating the same thing. COLGATE4 Jul 2013 #79

What I am saying is that anyone who heard that juror and did not hear bias malaise Jul 2013 #80

You're expressing your personal opinion. One with which COLGATE4 Jul 2013 #82

or was not trying to make the facts fit a COLGATE4 Jul 2013 #123

+1000 she is rotten to the core noiretextatique Jul 2013 #182

the juror called him "georgie"... chillfactor Jul 2013 #84

Yuu seem to keep believing that that is somehow COLGATE4 Jul 2013 #86

sorry but I have served on juries.... chillfactor Jul 2013 #92

Well, obviously since you haven't seen it COLGATE4 Jul 2013 #95

Can you cite when she called him "Georgie"? pintobean Jul 2013 #98

It was right after the part where they played the 911 tape and he started in with the racial slurs.. Pelican Jul 2013 #125

I think it's the differences between the references. Kennah Jul 2013 #117

And perhaps you (or I) would have. But to try and COLGATE4 Jul 2013 #121

You are so right! Caretha Jul 2013 #115

Everything this juror said and did occurred after COLGATE4 Jul 2013 #119

Jurors should be able brush Jul 2013 #137

Because they didn't agree with your hypothesis COLGATE4 Jul 2013 #144

I'd have to say brush Jul 2013 #147

You just can't get past the fact that six COLGATE4 Jul 2013 #157

I stand by my post brush Jul 2013 #187

I think it shows that, but even more that she and her husband both had a racist DevonRex Jul 2013 #89

Yes! The precedent this decision sets is frightening. hrmjustin Jul 2013 #91

Did you notice the President Obama's use of "paths and avenues" yesterday? DevonRex Jul 2013 #96

Yes well said! And yet the RW could not wait to pounce on our President when he spoke from his hrmjustin Jul 2013 #97

Mahalo for that, Devon~ Cha Jul 2013 #110

Mahalo, Cha. DevonRex Jul 2013 #113

Then I shall reiterate what I posted on this thread.. Cha Jul 2013 #116

K&R! Way to go, Florida Ruby the Liberal Jul 2013 #3

Pedicures? Not just manicures, but pedicures? Flagrant kissing up. freshwest Jul 2013 #7

So all that kissing up by the prosection didn't work. Good. hack89 Jul 2013 #10

Upscale. Octafish Jul 2013 #13

Sequestration doesn't mean losing all contact COLGATE4 Jul 2013 #34

oh come on..... chillfactor Jul 2013 #90

Who are you suggesting tampered with the jury? COLGATE4 Jul 2013 #94

Whoa... that's the fastest change of subject I've read on DU in defacto7 Jul 2013 #128

If the poster is not alleging jury tampering COLGATE4 Jul 2013 #145

For the sake of consistency... Orrex Jul 2013 #47

Certainly not as much care going on there on the taxpayer's dime as this tea party group... freshwest Jul 2013 #51

Since the Casey Anthony jury was also sequestered and was allowed visitors hack89 Jul 2013 #4

The article says nothing about the visits being unsupervised... Spazito Jul 2013 #11

Once someone actually shows me the rules on sequestration hack89 Jul 2013 #14

The 'rules' are at the Judge's discretion... Spazito Jul 2013 #18

So where are the rules for Florida? hack89 Jul 2013 #25

How about you show me where there are 'regulations' governing sequestration... Spazito Jul 2013 #27

I don't really care - I don't think it is a problem hack89 Jul 2013 #99

Ok, no examples to be found... Spazito Jul 2013 #100

You are trying too hard hack89 Jul 2013 #103

Ummm, I believe you made the post to me and not I to you... Spazito Jul 2013 #122

I asked for anyone to show me that rules were broken hack89 Jul 2013 #140

Excellent, Spazito! You're not "trying too hard".. you Cha Jul 2013 #111

Hey Cha! Spazito Jul 2013 #120

Well, this may explain how Zimmerman's friend Taaffe knew the jury was 5 to 1 for acquittal... Junkdrawer Jul 2013 #5

that's what i'm thinking. taaffe knows someone.. frylock Jul 2013 #35

I know what Juror B37 said in her interview set off alarm bells in my mind... Spazito Jul 2013 #6

Media tainted and involved itself far too much in the case the entire time. Seamless. freshwest Jul 2013 #9

Ok, I Know This May Be Construed As Gossip ChiciB1 Jul 2013 #12

It's possible pipi_k Jul 2013 #16

Next time Politicalboi Jul 2013 #28

I know... pipi_k Jul 2013 #29

"I guess State workers aren't paid to think or anything" . interesting comment. HiPointDem Jul 2013 #39

Juror B37 also said during voire dire that she wondered why Trayvon was out "so late." yardwork Jul 2013 #46

And immediately sought to profit from the trial. Disgusting. freshwest Jul 2013 #52

Well...jurors are not in jail davidn3600 Jul 2013 #15

That's true...and... pipi_k Jul 2013 #17

Actually you really bring up an interesting point Horse with no Name Jul 2013 #19

Hmmm.... pipi_k Jul 2013 #31

Don't know about that brush Jul 2013 #138

I'm not sure of the lkegalities... FirstLight Jul 2013 #20

No mistrial. No appeal by prosecution. COLGATE4 Jul 2013 #37

Hmmm.... Cheviteau Jul 2013 #49

No. Just factually stating where this case is right now. COLGATE4 Jul 2013 #50

Why is it always... 99Forever Jul 2013 #60

Sounds like you have some issues. COLGATE4 Jul 2013 #63

Issues? 99Forever Jul 2013 #70

Would you mind pointing out the lies pintobean Jul 2013 #78

I don't go down rabbitholes. 99Forever Jul 2013 #106

Going by what I see here pintobean Jul 2013 #108

I don't give... 99Forever Jul 2013 #114

How sweet of you. pintobean Jul 2013 #118

You should take a very deep breath... Pelican Jul 2013 #127

Excellent... 99Forever Jul 2013 #154

!!! Ruby the Liberal Jul 2013 #93

Jury sequestering is to curb influence by MEDIA, ie TV, radio, print, and internet. kestrel91316 Jul 2013 #21

It is to "curb influence" from outside sources, not just the media n/t Spazito Jul 2013 #23

you can't deny people unsupervised access to their own family or significant others, that's nuts CreekDog Jul 2013 #176

Yes, a judge can and does, it is at their discretion... Spazito Jul 2013 #178

So typical of this area. Baitball Blogger Jul 2013 #22

+1 darkangel218 Jul 2013 #26

There are those who believe the Casey Anthony jury was also allowed unsupervised visits... Spazito Jul 2013 #24

Well it has the Zim lovers all pissed off instantly. Rex Jul 2013 #30

Did they yank the TVs our of their rooms and B2G Jul 2013 #33

To answer your question... Spazito Jul 2013 #40

That is part and parcel of sequestering, yes. (nt) Posteritatis Jul 2013 #69

Can we all admit now that the whole thing was a farce? Myrina Jul 2013 #36

The state knew it was a weak case davidn3600 Jul 2013 #44

I dont think the state wanted to win DJ13 Jul 2013 #102

Ditto! defacto7 Jul 2013 #129

Does't that defeat the purpose of a sequester? iandhr Jul 2013 #41

Everything that was possible to subvert justice was done in this case. Never heard of shenanigans... freshwest Jul 2013 #53

Hear, Hear! defacto7 Jul 2013 #130

Yes, it was. Major Hogwash Jul 2013 #139

"which can be held liable for failing to properly ensure an untampered jury." - How exactly PoliticAverse Jul 2013 #42

I think you mean "sequestered" <-- as in a phony kangaroo court fig leaf. ~nt 99th_Monkey Jul 2013 #48

This message was self-deleted by its author bettyellen Jul 2013 #66

Nothing looks wrong here LittleBlue Jul 2013 #73

If anyone thinks the juror's were going home to face the community and family with a 'guilty..... Tikki Jul 2013 #83

What a mockery of justice. felix_numinous Jul 2013 #104

+1 HiPointDem Jul 2013 #109

Wow & Wow! Cha Jul 2013 #107

and what's there to be done now ... NOTHING! :-( nt Raine Jul 2013 #112

Nothing can be done to Z... But I'm thinking corruption charges are being worked on. freshwest Jul 2013 #133

b37 is a real disgusting piece of shit JI7 Jul 2013 #131

i agree noiretextatique Jul 2013 #184

Can any of this change the virdict? jwirr Jul 2013 #151

Nope. n/t X_Digger Jul 2013 #152

No, not even a chance of that. tumtum Jul 2013 #153