Zimmerman Trial

[Tinykong]

Am I incorrect in thinking that the jury can talk about anything they want to talk about during deliberations, not counting any sort of interference or tampering? Or, for example, is knowing that the law could give a life sentence and telling the other jurors about it considered some sort of tampering?

I'm not sure if the jury is allowed to use potential jail time as a justification for choosing a charge.

For example, I don't think they are allowed to say "well murder is life in prison, but assault is 10 years, and I think he should be in jail for 10 years, so assault."

The judge is breaking down the 10-20-life requirements right now.

[Deleted]

So, for anyone watching this live stream, the past 60 seconds (right before the jury just came out) any guesses what's going through the poor guys head?

"Thank God I'm going to get away with it thanks to the Prosecution's lawyers being worse than my own!"

[alturic]

I was a juror on a death penalty murder case in that same area. When you are deliberating, there is nobody in the room with you. It is all about the people in the room. The only thing the court can control is what you can have in the room. We had asked if we could get the sentencing guidelines for the crimes. We were denied because that information is not part of the evidence.

Well it makes sense... you shouldn't be basing your judgement on what the sentencing guidelines are. Afterall you are there to say if he's guilty or not-guilty, guilty but only if it's 10 years.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm not sure if the jury is allowed to use potential jail time as a justification for choosing a charge.

For example, I don't think they are allowed to say "well murder is life in prison, but assault is 10 years, and I think he should be in jail for 10 years, so assault."

The judge is breaking down the 10-20-life requirements right now.

I'm fairly certain it's either murder 2 or manslaughter.

- - - Updated - - -

"Thank God I'm going to get away with it thanks to the Prosecution's lawyers being worse than my own!"

I certainly hope that's the verdict, but I always tend to err on the side of everything being against me, so if something does come out good I'm surprised, but if it's negative I'm not shocked. I'd be scared shitless if I was up there. :P

[Deleted]

I certainly hope that's the verdict, but I always tend to err on the side of everything being against me, so if something does come out good I'm surprised, but if it's negative I'm not shocked. I'd be scared shitless if I was up there. :P

He will likely walk. Shame really.

[belfpala]

I'm not sure if the jury is allowed to use potential jail time as a justification for choosing a charge.

For example, I don't think they are allowed to say "well murder is life in prison, but assault is 10 years, and I think he should be in jail for 10 years, so assault."

The judge is breaking down the 10-20-life requirements right now.

I was just saying, and KDSwain above kind of verified, that once the jury gets into the room it's basically a black box. The process they go through is not checked or verified, they are never required to give a reason for their vote, etc.

Caveat: I've never actually made it that far. The two times I've been called for jury duty I was dismissed, once by the prosecution (apparently they don't like educated people), and once by the defense (apparently they don't like white males with a hispanic defendant).

[Tinykong]

I'm fairly certain it's either murder 2 or manslaughter.

I used assault as just an example. I was referring to the jury using the 10-20-Life statute to pick which charge they wanted to apply. I don't think they are allowed to discuss sentencing, at least that's what it sounded like yesterday.

[Aeluron Lightsong]

I still can't fathom this even gets to court with how pathetic the Prosecution was. I mean gathering by what I've read here, I've seen better on Law and Order: SVU.

[Tinykong]

He will likely walk. Shame really.

So, you really don't care about the legal process or truth, you just want revenge? Gotcha.

[alturic]

He will likely walk. Shame really.

I was definitely feeling that way the whole case based solely off the evidence, but when you have a prosecutor basically tell you "forget all the evidence showing he was justified. find it in your hearts to give justice to this child and convict him".

- - - Updated - - -

I still can't fathom this even gets to court with how pathetic the Prosecution was. I mean gathering by what I've read here, I've seen better on Law and Order: SVU.

Hey now, they actually used an example that involved Law and Order in their rebuttal...

[Deleted]

I still can't fathom this even gets to court with how pathetic the Prosecution was. I mean gathering by what I've read here, I've seen better on Law and Order: SVU.

The worst part is that the defence was awful as well. Shame this guy is going to walk because his lawyers the shinier of two turds.

- - - Updated - - -

So, you really don't care about the legal process or truth, you just want revenge? Gotcha.

Truth will never be known fully because an over-zealous moron killed the only other side of the story.

[twh]

Just a reminder that George Zimmerman is not a Caucasian/white.

[alturic]

The worst part is that the defence was awful as well. Shame this guy is going to walk because his lawyers the shinier of two turds.

- - - Updated - - -



Truth will never be known fully because an over-zealous moron killed the only other side of the story.

So then essentially you feel that in ANY case where a defendant killed the other person they should be instantly convicted for no other reason than because the other person can't tell their side?

[Aeluron Lightsong]

The worst part is that the defence was awful as well. Shame this guy is going to walk because his lawyers the shinier of two turds.

Prosecution had crap evidence and did a logical fallacy. Yeah, sorry but Zimmerman is walking free. Riots be damned.

[Krastyn]

Truth will never be known fully because an over-zealous moron killed the only other side of the story.

But yet you're convinced that he's guilty, despite any evidence.

[Deleted]

So then essentially you feel that in ANY case where a defendant killed the other person they should be instantly convicted for no other reason than because the other person can't tell their side?

Of course not, but in this case it's pretty clear that Zimmermen took it upon himself to play cop and knew exactly what he was doing.

Even if he didn't intend to kill him from the outset, he forced the situation and should be held accountable.

[Korgoth]

Trying to watch the judge's instructions, totally zoning out, makes me wonder if the Jurors have too.

[belfpala]

So then essentially you feel that in ANY case where a defendant killed the other person they should be instantly convicted for no other reason than because the other person can't tell their side?

Flip that.

Do you feel that in no case should a defendant be convicted because the other person isn't alive to tell their side?

- - - Updated - - -

Trying to watch the judge's instructions, totally zoning out, makes me wonder if the Jurors have too.

Lol, I said a few pages back the instructions would be boring.

[Tinykong]

Truth will never be known fully because an over-zealous moron killed the only other side of the story.

So rather than go with the assumption of innocence, you're going to consider him guilty because you think he is?

Like I said, you just want revenge.

[The Riddler]

that is condescending towards women saying they will make decisions based on emotions and not facts

Women think and act differently than men. Duh. There is a whole industry of books that talk about this basic fact of reality. It is undeniable, and to imply otherwise is foolishness. Women/females primarily judge and weigh matters using a more emotional and empathic set of metrics, while males primarily use logic and facts. This is not to say that women ENTIRELY disregard facts, or that man ENTIRELY have no emotions. It is simply that the two groups are different and think about things different ways.

The prosecution is clearly targeting their emotions, and are almost entirely ignoring facts, reason, logic, and even basic reality. They're fabricating things out of pure imagination, throwing them at the jury, and then PLEADING for them to find Zimmerman guilty not because they have things like "videos, transcripts, and evidence" - but because of "common sense". And they are banking on the fact that an all-female jury is going to be far more susceptible to this kind of bullcrap approach than if it was a bunch of men. If this was an all MALE jury, the defense wouldn't be doing this approach. They wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole because they know an all-male jury would react to it entirely with contempt because it is such a naked appeal to their emotions coupled with such an incompetent lack of actual evidence.

But a woman jury? Such an approach might actually work with an all female jury because they are far more likely to base their thoughts, reasoning, and evaluations on emotional appeals. Don't believe it? The Menendez trial. Remember that? I do. A woman on the first failed jury fought to acquit the Menendez brothers because "they'd be growing up without a mother now..." The fact that these were full grown men who had shotgunned that mother to death themselves didn't matter to that woman. All that mattered was that in her head she was "sad" that these "boys" no longer had a mommy. That is how women evaluate and measure reality sometimes. That's just how it is. And the Prosecution in this case knows that and is COUNTING on it as their primary tactic. It's pretty much their only shot at any sort of conviction.

[alturic]

Of course not, but in this case it's pretty clear that Zimmermen took it upon himself to play cop and knew exactly what he was doing.

Really? I know I sure as hell wouldn't expect someone to beat the shit out of me if I was simply walking behind them or following them. They would be totally within their right to ask me what the hell my problem was but not (and there's no evidence to the contrary) decide to try and teach my creepy ass a lesson.

- - - Updated - - -

Flip that.

Do you feel that in no case should a defendant be convicted because the other person isn't alive to tell their side?

- - - Updated - - -



Lol, I said a few pages back the instructions would be boring.

Isn't that what evidence/testimony is for? That is supposed to be "your side" of the story, as shitty as it might seem. If there evidence/testimony isn't on your side (the dead one) it's unfortunate but what do you expect?