07-01-2013, 11:43 PM
Thanks for explaining, Jim.
The potential jurors were asked about their fears of public backlash in voir dire. Many potential jurors were dismissed based on their response to that question.
It is not simple human nature to lie during questioning. It's not simply human nature to ignore a sworn oath, which would in fact have to be a deliberate action as the issue has been addressed outwardly in advance.
The impaneled jurors swore not to consider any extraneous factors when deliberating a verdict. It would indeed be juror misconduct, and subject to appeal, for them to render any verdict based, even in part, on fear.
If one juror made a suggestion of a "compromise" verdict based on something not presented at trial (or if it was clear that's what he/she was doing) all of the others would have to agree to that misconduct and not report it. It would, by default, require collaboration unless you're suggesting that all 6 jurors are afraid and none of them did/would admit it to each other or the court. They'd all have to be cowardly liars for your theory to hold any water. Unrealistic, at the very least.
Yours is a far-fetched notion that discredits the jury in advance, imo. It sounds more like, "if Zimmerman is found guilty of manslaughter, it won't be based on the evidence, it will be based on the jury's fear to acquit". Strikes me as hedging for anyone who doesn't care what the evidence reveals and is instead fully committed to the belief that George Zimmerman never should have been charged and/or did no wrong.
If Zimmerman's acquitted, which I think is more likely than I did before the trial started, then what? By your logic, that would mean that the jurors are abnormal; they all will have bucked human nature and should be viewed as superhuman for simply being honest and doing what they swore to do?
At this point, the least likely verdict in my mind has gone from being acquittal to being Murder 2. Whether or not the state can get Manslaughter is now resting firmly on their ability to hit it out of the park with forensics, imo.
In any event, I don't think they'll be any riots regardless of the verdict. It's not a cut and dry case and those who are that passionate about it can see what we're seeing at trial.
It will be interesting to see how this all plays out.
The potential jurors were asked about their fears of public backlash in voir dire. Many potential jurors were dismissed based on their response to that question.
It is not simple human nature to lie during questioning. It's not simply human nature to ignore a sworn oath, which would in fact have to be a deliberate action as the issue has been addressed outwardly in advance.
The impaneled jurors swore not to consider any extraneous factors when deliberating a verdict. It would indeed be juror misconduct, and subject to appeal, for them to render any verdict based, even in part, on fear.
If one juror made a suggestion of a "compromise" verdict based on something not presented at trial (or if it was clear that's what he/she was doing) all of the others would have to agree to that misconduct and not report it. It would, by default, require collaboration unless you're suggesting that all 6 jurors are afraid and none of them did/would admit it to each other or the court. They'd all have to be cowardly liars for your theory to hold any water. Unrealistic, at the very least.
Yours is a far-fetched notion that discredits the jury in advance, imo. It sounds more like, "if Zimmerman is found guilty of manslaughter, it won't be based on the evidence, it will be based on the jury's fear to acquit". Strikes me as hedging for anyone who doesn't care what the evidence reveals and is instead fully committed to the belief that George Zimmerman never should have been charged and/or did no wrong.
If Zimmerman's acquitted, which I think is more likely than I did before the trial started, then what? By your logic, that would mean that the jurors are abnormal; they all will have bucked human nature and should be viewed as superhuman for simply being honest and doing what they swore to do?
At this point, the least likely verdict in my mind has gone from being acquittal to being Murder 2. Whether or not the state can get Manslaughter is now resting firmly on their ability to hit it out of the park with forensics, imo.
In any event, I don't think they'll be any riots regardless of the verdict. It's not a cut and dry case and those who are that passionate about it can see what we're seeing at trial.
It will be interesting to see how this all plays out.