State vrs Zimmerman

[Guest josephga]

I wonder why they went with 6 females. id only fell comfortable with this jury if I was charged with killing a child molester. the Andrea Sneiderman case starts here in Atlanta on july 29th i'm going to follow that one daily

[Guest FourAces]

I wonder why they went with 6 females. id only fell comfortable with this jury if I was charged with killing a child molester.

According to Mark O'Mara they noticed during jury selection that the prosecution was contesting all white women. They made and objection and the court sustained their objection. From there he said it kind of happened naturally. He commented he wished there had been a few males on the jury.

[Lucky]

I know the state has their hour rebuttal to do but after listening to both closing arguments and taking in consideration the law I would have to find Zimmerman not guilty. There is plenty of reasonable doubt.

Plenty of reasonable doubt as to what? He killed an unamred youth. It may not be first degree murder, but it sure is manslaughter.

[RA1]

Assuming that you are correct in that it is manslaughter, do you think the penalty should be exactly the same as for 2nd degree murder? Apparently it is, at least for the minimum of 9+ years.

Just curious.

Best regards,

RA1

[Guest josephga]

Plenty of reasonable doubt as to what? He killed an unamred youth. It may not be first degree murder, but it sure is manslaughter.

for me when watching this reasonable doubt comes into play based on a Florida law. In Florida you are allowed to use excessive force to protect yourself from bodily injury. If he was slamming his head into the concrete that could cause a concussion or death regardless if the teen was armed or not

[Guest josephga]

not guilty justice wins

[Guest EXPAT]

I expected this result. There is no way the prosecution proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt. But just because he was found not guilty doesn't mean he is innocent.

[Guest hitoallusa]

Well it's unfortunate a person died in the altercation. I'm not sure why he had to shoot his gun. He could have just threaten the kid to back off.

[Suckrates]

FWIW, I think a case is there for manslaughter.

Zimmerman clearly was the armed aggressor. If anyone was standing his own ground it was Treyvon. I think there is enough circumstantial evidence to believe that beyond a reasonable doubt. The stalking by an armed Zimmerman even after 911 urged him to back off, the lack of blood or DNA on Trayvon supposedly after an intense body-to-body tussel, the limited injury to Zimmerman in contrast to his story of a life-threatening beating, the contradictions in Zimerman's story to police and on Hannity with those presented in court by his attorneys.

That said, I expect a hung jury or acquital. There is just too much noise woven into the facts as presented. I doubt the jury has the analytical chops to separate the wheat from the chaff, which would take a lot of time. The prosecution did not have a slam dunk. Their main witness was shaky. IMO the defense did not present a cogent defense but did throw up a lot of dust and mud to obscure a circumstantial case with a weak main witness.

As always, it depends on the jury analysis and emotions, and character too.

One fact is unassailable IMO. The Sanford Police and Sherif, organizations, labs and individuals, deserve a lot of credit for the facts of this case being so clouded and screwed up. Heads should roll. I know some have but I suspect more should.

Also, I think the bald-headed defense attorney ought to be sanctioned after the trial. IMO he attempted, not too discretely, to create chaos and grounds for an appeal by his numerous idiotic attempts to object to the court procedure as laid out by the judge, as it unfolded, to provoke either judicial error or prosecution error that would be grounds for appeal, if not grounds for mistrial. His courtroom behavior was unacceptable on several occasions, most especially in the last few days IMO.

How could it have been a HUNG jury ??? Werent they ALL female ????

But seriously, the only FACT is that the kid is dead, and The accused got off. Sharpton and his minions will find that VERY hard to swallow...

[Guest josephga]

legally it was the right verdict. the prosecutors failed to prove it wasn't self defense.

[Guest FourAces]

Plenty of reasonable doubt as to what? He killed an unamred youth. It may not be first degree murder, but it sure is manslaughter.

The question was never about who killed T Martin it was always about self defense. Since the burden is on the state to prove it was not self defense it was not done. I watched nearly the entire trial and heard the jury instructions. Based on my view there are plenty of unanswered questions but the law does not allow G Zimmerman to be convicted over unanswered questions.

I think based on the law the jury made the correct decision.

Personally to me G Zimmerman is not so much innocent the state failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt his guilt.

And I think T Martin did wait around and confront G Zimmerman instead of going home (less than a 45 second walk from that point). I think there was a fight and it was T Martin heard screaming for help on the 911 calls ... but only after he realized G Zimmerman was armed.

The entire incident never should have happened its all quite sad.

And almost as pathetic was the march in San Francisco last night. Over 4500 miles away the self righteous had to make the 11pm news

[Guest josephga]

allot say not guilty but not innocent imo if it happen this way then imo he is innocent

After telling the police dispatcher that Martin "ran" Zimmerman left his vehicle to determine his location and ascertain in which direction Martin had fled. The dispatcher asked if Zimmerman was following Martin, and Zimmerman replied "Yeah." Then the dispatcher said, "OK, we don't need you to do that." Zimmerman replied with "OK" and stated that Martin got away. After a discussion about where Zimmerman would meet police, the call ended, and Zimmerman told investigators he was returning to his vehicle when Martin approached him from his left rear and confronted him. According to Zimmerman, Martin then punched him in the face, knocking him down, and began beating his head against the sidewalk ^] Zimmerman said he called out for help while being beaten, and at one point Martin covered his mouth to muffle the screams. According to Zimmerman's father, during the struggle while Martin was on top of Zimmerman, Martin saw the gun his son was carrying and said something to the effect of "You're gonna die now" or "You're gonna die tonight" and continued to beat Zimmerman.^[ Zimmerman and Martin struggled over the gun, and Zimmerman shot Martin once in the chest at close range, in self-defense.

[Guest zipperzone]

And when do the riots start?

[Lucky]

What bothers me about all of this is that none of us- not one- was in the courtroom. We did not hear the evidence in its entirety. Yet that does not stop people from deciding guilt or innocence. When I spoke to the issue, I spoke as a layman and my opinion was: you kill an unarmed man, especially one younger than yourself, then you suffer a penalty. Period. But, that's not the law. Especially in silly Florida.

i wonder if opinions would have changed had the young man been a cute white twink. Seriously, think about it.

[RA1]

Martin was cute enough, twink or not, in the mass media pictures which may or may not have been a recent image. He was days away from being 18 which many on this site believe is the age of consent. So, he was not a young child but an almost legal adult as well as possibly being an aleady physical adult.

It is hard to differentiate the racial issue as put forward by "race mongers" such as Sharpton and others from the "reverse race" issue also presented. One would hope the jurors paid attention and rendered a legal verdict. Apparently the judge thought so because she could have reversed the verdict then and there and did not.

Lots of politics and much less common sense. Sorry.

Best regards,

RA1

[AdamSmith]

Interesting thoughts.

Zimmerman trial: Time to reconsider six-member jury

BY SHARI SEIDMAN DIAMOND

s-diamond@law.northwestern.edu.

Small juries, like all small samples, carry big costs. Doesn’t a jury in a serious criminal case have 12 members? Not in Florida.

Florida is one of only two states where a jury as small as six can decide a serious felony case. It is the only state where a murder case goes to a six-member jury. And second-degree murder in Florida is serious indeed, carrying a sentence of 25 years to life. The circumstances of the shooting that killed an unarmed teenager, moreover, are sharply disputed, implicating the use of guns, the limits of self-defense and race relations. As we often do, we have given the jury in this case a challenging task.

Why should we care if the jury has six or 12 members? The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to trial by jury, but it does not specify jury size. When the Sixth Amendment was written, was the number simply assumed? James Madison thought it was: He thought the number was 12.

For almost 200 years, the U.S. Supreme Court consistently accepted this view, defining “jury” to mean the 12-member jury. For instance, in 1930, the court said that “it is not open to question” whether juries may consist of fewer than 12.

In 1970, however, the court reversed its position in Williams v. Florida and found no constitutional objection to Florida’s six-member jury. The court labeled the general use of 12 throughout history as an “historical accident.” The court’s characterization of the historical record has been widely disputed, but even more egregiously, the court joined its new historical assessment with a strikingly inaccurate behavioral claim.

It proclaimed that the behavior of six- and 12-member juries were “functionally” equivalent, and therefore the six-member jury was unobjectionable. In fact, the overwhelming weight of empirical evidence shows that juries of six do not perform as well as juries of 12.

How do six- and 12-member juries differ? Two differences are particularly relevant in the trial of George Zimmerman. First, numerous studies of all kinds show that cutting jury size in half decreases the likelihood that the jury will reflect a representative sample of the community. The lone non-white juror on the George Zimmerman jury is just one instance of that effect. The all-female jury is another.

The gender make-up of the jury cannot be explained merely by the majority female jury pool or attorney use of challenges. A total of 10 jurors was selected, the jury of six and four alternates. Two of the alternates were male. A larger jury that included the additional four would not have been homogeneous on gender.

Ethnicity and gender are not the only dimensions of difference shortchanged by a smaller jury.

Any background or set of beliefs or life experiences that may affect reactions to the evidence is substantially less likely to be represented on a six-member jury than on a 12-member jury. Simply due to chance, unrepresentativeness is more likely when only six jurors are needed to constitute the jury. That loss is particularly troubling when the jurors are evaluating crucial and disputed evidence, like the identity of the voice in the background on the 911 tape in the Zimmerman case.

Second, jury research finds that larger juries spend more time deliberating and their discussions of testimony are more thorough than smaller juries. More vigorous debate reflects the expanded pool of abilities and perspectives provided by the larger jury. Similarly, the ability of dissenters to resist majority pressure is promoted by the increased likelihood that a dissenter whose position is not simply idiosyncratic will have one or more other jurors who share that view. The dissenters might not carry the day, but their views will be more seriously considered.

There is no evidence that jury size is associated with more pro-prosecution or more pro-defense verdicts. Thus, the key here is not that the six-member jury systematically advantages one side or the other. Rather, the point is that a serious charge demands serious procedural consideration.

Even Florida, like every other state with the death penalty, uses a 12-member jury for capital offenses. Second-degree murder does not carry the death penalty in Florida, but it does call for thorough deliberation from a variety of perspectives. The six-member jury is unnecessarily handicapped.

What should be done? Ample empirical evidence on the jury demonstrates the need to reverse course. Perhaps in the wake of the Zimmerman case, Florida will reconsider its unique position on jury size. Even better: In recent years, the Supreme Court has turned down several opportunities to revisit the question of jury size. Perhaps it should accept the next one.

Shari Seidman Diamond is the Howard J. Trienens Professor of Law at Northwestern University and a research professor at the American Bar Foundation.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/07/14/3497719_zimmerman-trial-time-to-reconsider.html#storylink=cpy

[Guest NCBored]

An interesting article - thanks for sharing. Obviously there is no way to determine whether jury size influences the quality of outcomes (from the standpoint of ;justice') but the article makes a good case for an improved (more thorough) process (if the process is to evaluate the testimonies & evidence).

[Guest FourAces]

What bothers me about all of this is that none of us- not one- was in the courtroom. We did not hear the evidence in its entirety. Yet that does not stop people from deciding guilt or innocence. When I spoke to the issue, I spoke as a layman and my opinion was: you kill an unarmed man, especially one younger than yourself, then you suffer a penalty. Period. But, that's not the law. Especially in silly Florida.

i wonder if opinions would have changed had the young man been a cute white twink. Seriously, think about it.

Totally disagree. I watched 90% plus of the trial. My decision is based on fact and Florida law according to the jury instructions. I don't care if its a black twink white twink asian twink ... bottom line result is the same.

I suggest you think about accusing posters of being racist when there has been no sign of it in this thread. I didn't know you were holier than us all.

Personally speaking this trial never was about race. It has always been about self defense.

Lastly remember Zimmerman is not white!

[Guest josephga]

I didn't see much on the local news or on any boards but once the trial started I watched all day between any clients I had then watched the recaps on nancy grace, dr drew and HLN after dark. they had a weak case. imo if they charged him with manslaughter in the first place and took the time during the trial to explain manslaughter the results might be different or maybe not. They failed to prep their witnesses. the medical examiner came off as confused and forgetful of facts when questions. that friend that was texting with trey came off as an unbelievable unlikeable bitch with a chip on her shoulder. I found dr Vincent dimaio for the defense much more believable . He pretty much wrote the book on gun shot wounds and he concluded things matched zimmermans story. His testimony was my biggest factor in reasonable doubt

[Guest hitoallusa]

Holder " I share concerns about Zimmerman acquittal"

http://news.yahoo.com/holder--i-share-concerns-about-zimmerman-acquittal-175941065.html

[TampaYankee]

Assuming that you are correct in that it is manslaughter, do you think the penalty should be exactly the same as for 2nd degree murder? Apparently it is, at least for the minimum of 9+ years.

Just curious.

Best regards,

RA1

I believe it someone takes the life of another either through malice or negligence then there ought to be some serious penalty. 9+ years as you put it seems damn little. If there is an incongruence with the penalties for the two crimes then it seems to me that the improper balance lies with the minimum for 2nd degree murder, not manslaughter.

[TampaYankee]

not guilty justice wins

Not guilty in no way represents justice, just the contrary, it means justice is denied, for the innocent as well as the guilty.

Not guilty is the mechanism for our system to minimize (not eliminate) the conviction of an innocent man. That mechanism does not arrive at justice but tries to forestall injustice.

[Guest josephga]

they interviewed one of the jury's behind a screen she said they went into the jury room thinking 50/50 split on what happen. Once they looked at all the evidence they believed Trey was the aggressor and that George defended himself.. they believed George was the one screaming for help on the tape too

[Guest EXPAT]

interesting memes from todays Facebook:

[Guest hitoallusa]

They ask for justice but commit injustice? I find it ironical.

http://news.yahoo.com/zimmerman-protesters-raid-la-store-075210080.html