Latest Breaking News

Spazito

(56,471 posts)

31. Visits aren't the issue, unsupervised is...

Thu Jul 18, 2013, 08:23 PM

Jul 2013

at least that is my issue.

Edited to add:

"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 cellphones once per day to check voice mails and make telephone calls in the presence of a deputy."

The monitored their cellphone voice mail, their phone calls but left them totally unsupervised during family AND friend visits.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/07/17/zimmerman-trayvon-martin-sanford-jury-seminole-county/2530283/

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

120 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Sequestered Zimmerman trial jurors had alone time with family during trial [View all] frontier00 Jul 2013 OP

b37, the husband, and the book JI7 Jul 2013 #1

Bingo! n/t Laurian Jul 2013 #3

+1 Tarheel_Dem Jul 2013 #6

^^ THIS ^^ Ruby the Liberal Jul 2013 #13

Nailed it!! Major Hogwash Jul 2013 #34

No, it can't, premium Jul 2013 #41

Sure it can. Major Hogwash Jul 2013 #46

Link? premium Jul 2013 #49

Gotti is dead, dude. Major Hogwash Jul 2013 #51

IOW, you can't provide the link that premium Jul 2013 #54

That's not my fault. Major Hogwash Jul 2013 #55

Weak dude, very weak. premium Jul 2013 #57

Only example I could find was Harry Aleman Kennah Jul 2013 #75

YUP ! russspeakeasy Jul 2013 #73

+1 Blue_Tires Jul 2013 #117

This is probably how that juror got a book deal so fast. hrmjustin Jul 2013 #2

and one of the Defense witness's was allowed to sit in the courtroom with them for the entire VanillaRhapsody Jul 2013 #4

what will need to be done is some investigation, probably some film maker/journalist JI7 Jul 2013 #5

from start to finish 99th_Monkey Jul 2013 #7

obviously heaven05 Jul 2013 #70

VanillaRhapsody, I watched most of the trial.. IIRC, re the Defense witness, friend of Zimmerman.. nenagh Jul 2013 #112

What absolute incompetence JimDandy Jul 2013 #8

This is fairly standard naaman fletcher Jul 2013 #19

In a high-profile case such as this JimDandy Jul 2013 #27

Well I agree naaman fletcher Jul 2013 #28

ohhh! heaven05 Jul 2013 #74

I didn't say the system worked perfectly. nt. naaman fletcher Jul 2013 #78

B37>Frank Taaffe>George "Georgie" Zimmerman.. frylock Jul 2013 #9

and the Cop testified for the Defense not the State.... VanillaRhapsody Jul 2013 #10

There must have been some real bad politics between Serino and the prosecutors. madaboutharry Jul 2013 #12

I have never before seen such a huckelberry hound JimDandy Jul 2013 #25

When the whole lot of them are incompetent, JimDandy Jul 2013 #16

The Cops took the defense side because they alsame Jul 2013 #36

yeah heaven05 Jul 2013 #76

Damn straight montanacowboy Jul 2013 #11

Don't believe that's what the initial vote was. From the CBS news report: 24601 Jul 2013 #23

But B37 said at a later point it was 5-1, that's when one alsame Jul 2013 #37

I smell obstruction of justice/jury tampering/jury misconduct here. . . DinahMoeHum Jul 2013 #14

It should be a mistrial, but can that overturn the verdict? Double jeopardy, etc. freshwest Jul 2013 #20

There will not be a mistrial hack89 Jul 2013 #29

as heaven05 Jul 2013 #80

The ONLY way an acquittal can be set aside and a new trial ordered premium Jul 2013 #33

It's not on this thread, but there is a report that the jury was left alone in the courtroom with a freshwest Jul 2013 #69

they heaven05 Jul 2013 #77

WOW!!!! skeewee08 Jul 2013 #15

This was a classic sham trial. Dawson Leery Jul 2013 #17

Does this include the two women whose husbands are lawyers, enough Jul 2013 #18

Wouldn't it be nice to see everyone that put on this charade AllINeedIsCoffee Jul 2013 #21

And only one crack at mzmolly Jul 2013 #22

At the state level yes but that doesnt apply to any federal charges cstanleytech Jul 2013 #44

True. mzmolly Jul 2013 #64

Geez! Spazito Jul 2013 #24

What are the actual rules governing sequestration? hack89 Jul 2013 #26

Visits aren't the issue, unsupervised is... Spazito Jul 2013 #31

Oops, you missed a spot there. cstanleytech Jul 2013 #38

Signing something is not the same as being supervised... Spazito Jul 2013 #43

Except that part you left out is a key component Spazito. cstanleytech Jul 2013 #47

If that is the case then why not simply ask the jurors to sign an agreement as to their phone calls, Spazito Jul 2013 #48

Because there isnt any way to get the people that called their phones to cstanleytech Jul 2013 #50

The jurors had anonimity, only family and, it seems, friends knew who they were... Spazito Jul 2013 #58

Actually if a reporter wanted to they could have found out there names which is cstanleytech Jul 2013 #61

You do see my point though, I hope, at the contradictory aspect to this... Spazito Jul 2013 #63

Oh I see your point I just dont agree that allowing them some private time was a breach. cstanleytech Jul 2013 #66

It wasn't a legal breach, I have to assume the Judge authorized the unsupervised... Spazito Jul 2013 #72

Is heaven05 Jul 2013 #81

Is cstanleytech Jul 2013 #84

I heaven05 Jul 2013 #88

Actually if you had bothered to research it (since its clear you didnt) I have stated cstanleytech Jul 2013 #90

also CNN was VERY Pro Zimmerman and it was CNN where she got the interview JI7 Jul 2013 #35

Yes, I found them to be VERY pro-zimmerman for sure... Spazito Jul 2013 #39

What the FUCK? Zoeisright Jul 2013 #30

Oh, yeah, because when we want to encourage more people to Seeking Serenity Jul 2013 #32

"Unsupervised visits"? No Vested Interest Jul 2013 #40

Trayvon's Family didn't stand a chance warrior1 Jul 2013 #42

maybe the feds will now have the ability investigate this trial. madrchsod Jul 2013 #45

The feds will definitely be looking into this case now. Major Hogwash Jul 2013 #53

Investigate for what exactly? premium Jul 2013 #56

No no no!! Seeking Serenity Jul 2013 #59

LOL. premium Jul 2013 #60

How many people ? russspeakeasy Jul 2013 #79

you heaven05 Jul 2013 #83

There is ZERO evidence of corruption naaman fletcher Jul 2013 #89

disingenuous heaven05 Jul 2013 #92

in other words, you can't debate what I wrote. nt. naaman fletcher Jul 2013 #95

Post removed Post removed Jul 2013 #97

What's a Fleo? naaman fletcher Jul 2013 #99

Hey heaven05 Jul 2013 #100

You are pretty witty naaman fletcher Jul 2013 #101

I heaven05 Jul 2013 #103

People like what? naaman fletcher Jul 2013 #105

yep heaven05 Jul 2013 #106

He was refering to me, premium Jul 2013 #104

No, premium Jul 2013 #91

No problem heaven05 Jul 2013 #94

It wouldn't be a jury that overturned a verdict, premium Jul 2013 #98

Your heaven05 Jul 2013 #102

Link to one post where I've supported Zimmerman, just one. premium Jul 2013 #107

You're not telling people what they want to hear. COLGATE4 Jul 2013 #85

Post removed Post removed Jul 2013 #96

Apparently correcting people on what the law actually is premium Jul 2013 #108

good for them Niceguy1 Jul 2013 #52

Aw fuck this whole thing smells ... Myrina Jul 2013 #62

Sounds corrupt at worst Aldo Leopold Jul 2013 #65

from heaven05 Jul 2013 #67

A justice system covered in filth. UtahLib Jul 2013 #68

Sanford is filth. Dawson Leery Jul 2013 #71

If it truly was a rigged sham trial, it will come out tularetom Jul 2013 #82

File under "Wishful thinking". nt COLGATE4 Jul 2013 #86

Maybe you're wishful thinking tularetom Jul 2013 #87

It appears the prosecutors did not want a win on this one madokie Jul 2013 #93

You could see from the very beginning that their hearts premium Jul 2013 #109

They were forced to file charges to begin with madokie Jul 2013 #110

Just one small correction here, premium Jul 2013 #111

My bad madokie Jul 2013 #113

First the Shopping Spree at Mall, and Now This??? 99th_Monkey Jul 2013 #114

Because the defense had nothing to do with it. premium Jul 2013 #115

So you think because annulments are "rare" that it shouldn't happen in this case? 99th_Monkey Jul 2013 #116

No, the verdict shouldn't be set aside, premium Jul 2013 #118

What you say may be true, but that doesn't make it right morally. 99th_Monkey Jul 2013 #119

True, morally, it's not right, premium Jul 2013 #120