General Discussion

jberryhill

(62,444 posts)

186. Not even a conjugal visit?

Reply to CreekDog (Reply #185)

Thu Jul 25, 2013, 04:57 PM

Jul 2013

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