Skip to main content

View Diary: Juror B29 needs to shut up (96 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Why so much vitriol for a juror? (17+ / 0-)

    Jurors are an important element of the civil and criminal justice but they're just ordinary folks who don't have any training or insight into the legal system.  There's no educational requirement and they're simply asked to do the best they can to listen to the evidence and the jury instructions and come up with a verdict.  We've collectively decided that this is the best system that we know, and of course, it necessarily means that every juror isn't going to be the smartest or most savvy person in the community.  

    It would be one thing if she admitted that she didn't care about the case and just flipped a coin on the verdict, but by all accounts so far, this woman did the best that she could to fulfill her duty as a juror.  The fact that you and others don't agree with how she performed her duty or the verdict shouldn't be a license to personally attack her.  Most lawyers would agree that even if a juror doesn't accept their argument, if the juror paid attention and gave it his or her best in the verdict, that's about all we can ask.

    A better target for one's anger or frustration may be with our educational system since people are so poorly educated about the justice system in the first place - including a lot of folks around here based on diaries and comments related to the trial.

    •  People are understandably angry (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      a2nite, Darmok, VClib

      about the Trayvon Martin murder. And the killer is not going to pay, so there is a need for someone else to. This is why you see such vitriol directed at the prosecution, the judge, the media, and the jurors. Blaming someone, anyone, is a natural human reaction when left with such an unsatisfying outcome to a trial. It will pass.

      •  Will it? (3+ / 0-)

        It would be great if people's frustration resulted in a change of the law, or if it got people to take the time to learn a bit more about how the criminal justice system works and how and when it fails so that it can be improved.

        But inflammatory diaries like this that direct and focus anger on someone who just did their job as a member of the community are embarrassing and unworthy of the site.  

        •  Hmmm (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          It would be great if people's frustration resulted in a change of the law
          Which part of the law that was applicable to the Zimmerman case do you think should be changed? And how?

          Dammit Jim, I'm a lawyer, not a grammarian. So sue me.

          by Pi Li on Sat Jul 27, 2013 at 08:03:22 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  A better target is the lousy prosecution (5+ / 0-)

      who are the ones who totally failed at their duty in this case. And there are others who dropped the ball, like those who took 44 days to arrest Zimmerman for killing someone.

      Juror B29 was extremely thoughtless, to say that she was "hurting as much Trayvon’s Martin’s mother". She should apologize for those words, and perhaps she will, soon. But she wasn't expressing meanness, callousness or superiority - she was trying to express sympathy for Trayvon's mother.

      It does look like her heart's in the right place, and that she was the one juror who started off looking for a guilty verdict for 2nd degree murder. But she also looked, in the interview, like she was overwhelmed and somewhat confused at the high-pressure box she was put in.

      If the prosecutors and the judge had done a better job making the facts and legalities clear here, and if juror B37 had been struck from the jury as she should have, then juror B29 would have had a much better chance to consider the whole case calmly and clearly, and it's likely the whole jury would have found Zimmerman guilty of manslaughter (or possibly murder).

      I think we're blaming juror B29 too hard, just for being human, confused, and caught up in a huge drama where it's hard to know just what she should say.

      "Every man has a right to utter what he thinks truth" Samuel Johnson

      by Brecht on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 09:05:21 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Ifs and butts (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Every trial has its moments of "could this have been done differently."  There's no such thing as a slam dunk and even with the best facts and law, there's always the chance of an adverse verdict - and this wasn't a case with great facts, unfortunately.

        •  "Ifs and buts" - damn my fingers! (0+ / 0-)
        •  But where was the reasonable person standard? (0+ / 0-)

          IANAL but I could only take so much of that trial. At every entry point I found myself exiting almost immediately.

          The simple reluctance of the state to treat the scene as a crime once is was established that Martin had a right to be there shocked me.

          The bizarre notion that a "Black" boy would suddenly suspend his desire for self perservation and approach some one and then assault them is beyond illogical!

          The strange tactic of the prosecution not presenting a credible theory of events and presenting a "defense" case.

          The odd lack of follow up on obvious witness like the instructor who said Zimmerman had a .5 level (compared to what and defense or offense). Or Serino being saying that he believed Zimmerman was credible and asking his opinion about the obvious lie told to Hannity with a straight face.

          I could go on but that was not a credible prosecution. It was a sham trial!

          •  Yes, the police failed to secure the crime scene (0+ / 0-)

            because it wasn't a crime scene to them. No crime no crime scene investigation, no evidence to convict evil racist GZ.

            Win for evil GZ.
            Win for evil SYG.
            Win for the evil defense.
            Win for the evil radical racist RW Rs in Sanford.
            Win for evil racist police.

            Everyone else loses especially the criminal injustice system.

            FUCK the law.
            FUCK the police.
            FUCK FL.

            nosotros no somos estúpidos

            by a2nite on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 04:33:26 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Isn't it amazing that jury's are usually made up (0+ / 0-)

      of people who don't seem to have developed critical thinking skills and intellectual curiosity?  It seems like Lawyers get rid of jurors who might really think about and understand the law.  You never seem to see doctors, CEO's, writers, and others who have shown a history of critical thinking.  It seems they go after jurors who are weak minded and capable of being easily persuaded.  

      •  That's just not the case (0+ / 0-)

        I don't know where you get that, but if you apply a little critical thinking yourself, you'd see that it doesn't make sense.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (127)
  • Community (60)
  • Media (32)
  • Elections (32)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (30)
  • 2016 (29)
  • Law (28)
  • Environment (28)
  • Civil Rights (26)
  • Culture (24)
  • Barack Obama (24)
  • Hillary Clinton (23)
  • Republicans (22)
  • Climate Change (21)
  • Science (21)
  • Labor (19)
  • Economy (19)
  • Josh Duggar (18)
  • Jeb Bush (18)
  • Bernie Sanders (17)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site