The strange, strange case of juror B37.

[alsame]

Why Did They Let Her on the Zimmerman Jury?
The strange, strange case of juror B37.

Less than two days after a Florida jury found George Zimmerman not guilty in the death of Trayvon Martin, juror B37, one of the six members of the anonymous panel, signed with a literary agent to shop her book about the trial.

The news comes with a bonus video: juror B37’s entire voir dire captured on film and promoted today by Gawker. The process by which counsel on each side of the case interviews prospective jurors is revealing in all kinds of ways, and a useful lesson in the strengths and weaknesses of the jury system. In the case of B37, it is also master class on how to not know anything about something everyone else knows about.

Start with the general observations already raised in Gawker: B37 consumes no media beyond the Today Show—no radio, no Internet news and no newspapers used for anything but lining her parrot cage. Perhaps because she does not consume any media, she was under the false belief that there were “riots” after the Martin shooting. She also described the Martin killing as "an unfortunate incident that happened."

But the tape raises another question that should be debated in every trial advocacy class in America: What were the lawyers, especially the prosecutors, thinking when they seated her? Why didn’t prosecutors use one of their peremptory challenges to nix her? She’s contrarian, she raised serious ontological doubts about the nature of truth-seeking, and she was only ever truly animated on the subject of rescue birds. Both lawyers were visibly cowed by her. I asked several prosecutors, former prosecutors, and public defenders to watch the video and report on the red flags it raised for them.


Continue reading: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2013/07/zimmerman_trial_juror_b37_why_did_prosecutors_let_her_on_the_trayvon_martin.html

[Blue_Tires]

1. either the prosecutors are just that incompetent or they intentionally threw the trial

my question is why are they still employed this morning??

[alsame]

2. Everything about this case stinks to high heaven. nt

[ceonupe]

10. Of they are so used to using these same

Biased to win convictions of black men on less evidence all the time and they themselves have more in common with B37 than trayvon or his parents.

The state all the time uses racial bias for their benefit in other cases. It's conscious and subconscious.

Oh a Angela Corey (read up on her you will see she uses the techniques of the defense all the time and often twists the rules over public defenders who usually represent black offenders she aggressively goes after)

[DainBramaged]

3. She is America

I learned I have a neighbor without a TV. She has no idea what is going on and she could care less.

[Cooley Hurd]

4. Excellent analysis - recommended.

[woodsprite]

5. Isn't she the one whose hubby is a lawyer also? n/t

[alsame]

7. Yes. nt

[Enrique]

6. she called the media coverage "hype"

so while she said she thought it was an unfortunate incident, she also thought people were making too big a deal out of Trayvon's death. Sounds like someone not very likely to send someone to jail over it.

[get the red out]

8. There were 11 other people on the jury

She wasn't alone in the verdict, 12 people were wrong here and my guess is that they all weren't "weird animal lovers". (I'm a weird animal lover too, but share the opposite opinion of this jury).

[alsame]

9. No, there were only 6 in total

on this jury.

[get the red out]

11. My bad

But this one juror did not let Z off the hook alone.

[alsame]

12. I agree. I'd be very interested to hear

from those who initially wanted murder 2 and manslaughter about what changed their minds.

[Heywood J]

13. If one juror goes into the room and declares

"I'm never voting to convict, so the only way you're getting out of here is to also vote not to convict," what do you think the climate of the room will be from that point?

[get the red out]

14. Good point

But unless more of them talk, we aren't going to know if that scenario is what happened, or if this particular juror is the one who had that attitude.

[avebury]

16. I have no respect for a juror who caves instead of standing by

his or her convictions. I think that the jury's decision is totally clouded now and people will remain upset. Trayvon Martin's death may very will be the match that brings the civil right's movement back to life while disproving the Supreme Court's claim that racism is dead in this country.

I think a lot of what triggers so much hatred and mistreatment of others in this country is that a lot of older white conservatives are scared of becoming that they fear the most - a minority. Being a bible thumper is not enough to make these people follow the golden rule: Matthew 7:12 12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

It is only a matter of time before they (or their descendents) experience what they have been doing to others for generations.

Payback can be a b*tch!

[Shrek]

15. It might have been hard to exclude her

During jury selection the prosecution excluded two white women who were later reinstated by the judge after a finding that the prosecutors dismissed them because of race.

That may have been a factor in their consideration of potential jurors.

[marions ghost]

17. I'm sure the Defense was racially profiling the jury, aren't you?

I hadn't heard that about the reinstatement, but in a town with a lot of homogeneity, it can be difficult to weed out everybody you'd like to weed out on a jury anyway. When playing whack-a-mole, some of the moles get through...

I'm sure the defense was racially profiling in their selection, but didn't get called out.

We all know that a fairer jury would have had at least three black or minority members. I could see a law that if the case is minority vs white, a fairer breakdown is mandated.

Jury selection is never done to even the odds, or make anything more fair. I don't know why citizens accept this, except that they don't understand how the system is gamed all the time.

Why can't an independent (non-lawyer) selection of the jury be a better way to go?

That being said, Zimmerman should had to testify.