|
This is a sensitive and complex issue, please do not make comments without first reading the facts, which are cataloged in the OP.
If you make an uninformed post, or one that isn't relevant to the discussion, you will be moderated. If in doubt, don't post. |
On June 15 2013 01:17 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2013 00:55 Zaqwe wrote:On June 15 2013 00:50 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 14 2013 23:59 Rho_ wrote:On June 14 2013 06:29 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 14 2013 05:49 xDaunt wrote:On June 14 2013 04:51 dAPhREAk wrote:BIG NEWS - jury to be sequestered. This is not standard. Trayvon Martin murder trial jury to be sequestered: judge The jury in the racially-charged Trayvon Martin case in Florida will be sequestered during the murder trial of the neighborhood watchman who killed the unarmed black teenager, the judge ruled on Thursday.
Seating an impartial jury in the trial of George Zimmerman in a central Florida court may not be as problematic as many had initially feared, despite blanket media coverage that captivated the United States for much of 2012.
The search for potential jurors who claim they know little or nothing at all about the shooting has been moving slowly after jury selection began on Monday in Seminole County criminal court.
But in a sign of progress, some potential jurors said they knew the basic outlines of the case and needed to be prodded by lawyers to recall any specific details.
The judge's order to sequester the jury of six and four alternates means that all ten people eventually chosen will be kept in a private location such as a hotel for the duration of the trial, which is expected to last two to four weeks.
Circuit Court Judge Debra Nelson has said the identities of the jurors will not be made public.
No jurors have been selected so far to hear evidence in a case in which Zimmerman claims self-defense in the February 26, 2012 shooting. Zimmerman, a 29-year-old light-skinned Hispanic, faces up to life imprisonment if convicted of the second-degree murder charge.
"The judge is definitely trying to move things along," said David Weinstein, a former state prosecutor now in private practice in Miami with the firm Clarke Silvergate.
Typically, prosecutors and defense lawyers, guided by a judge, select a panel within a day or two although that can drag out in high-profile cases where judges know intense media attention can influence potential jurors.
On Thursday morning, a white recent high school graduate said he surmised a few details from Facebook, such as that a black person was shot and that Zimmerman was the shooter. He said the topic was very controversial among fellow students at school but he recognized many were just making up "facts."
Some 20 prospective jurors have made it through the first round of questioning, focused largely on their exposure and reaction to widespread pre-trial publicity. Ten more are needed before a group of 30 will move on to further questioning about their views on issues related to the case, such as race and gun laws.
The case drew intense scrutiny and ignited protests because police initially declined to arrest Zimmerman, saying he acted in self-defense during a confrontation with Martin in a gated community in the central Florida town of Sanford.
Some potential jurors, like a middle-aged woman who works in a hospital operating room, told the court she only catches a few minutes of news in the morning before her commute. She and others described a daily work schedule that left little time for television viewing.
One prospect, referred to in court as B-72, even apologized twice for his professed ignorance about the case.
"I know it sounds bad," he said. "I didn't care about it. It didn't involve me. It didn't involve anyone I know."
A black woman referred to as R-65 claimed to have heard nothing about the case until a prayer was offered for both the Martin and Zimmerman families by her pastor at church. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/13/us-usa-florida-shooting-idUSBRE95C0UB20130613 Though not "standard" in general, sequestering the jury is very common in high-profile cases. i have never seen it done, and the judge originally said that she would not sequester the jury in this case even though it was "high profile." i imagine the jurors expressing fear for their safety changed her mind. If you've never seen a jury sequestered, you haven't followed many court proceedings. its an incredible burden on the jurors and their family to have them holed up in a hotel...why are you guys acting like this isnt rare? especially since the court did a 180 on this issue because she felt it was inappropriate at first to sequester them. I was actually quite shocked at her initial position. I am no lawyer but with so much publicity, so many death threats, and emotions running so high, what was the justification not to do it in the first place? If it is needed in any case it should be this one. telling jurors that they have to leave their lives for a month (limited or no contact with family, limited or no contact with friends, only regulated tv/radio, etc.) is not something judges are willing to do without substantial justification. she originally granted anonymity of the jurors which covers most of the concerns expressed. the "death threats" is overstated in my opinion.
How much of a death threat do you feel is required before the judge takes it seriously then?
|
I guarantee that the judge is less concerned about the safety of the jurors than she is with the possibility of the jurors becoming tainted by the extensive media coverage.
|
On June 15 2013 02:06 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2013 01:17 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 15 2013 00:55 Zaqwe wrote:On June 15 2013 00:50 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 14 2013 23:59 Rho_ wrote:On June 14 2013 06:29 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 14 2013 05:49 xDaunt wrote:On June 14 2013 04:51 dAPhREAk wrote:BIG NEWS - jury to be sequestered. This is not standard. Trayvon Martin murder trial jury to be sequestered: judge The jury in the racially-charged Trayvon Martin case in Florida will be sequestered during the murder trial of the neighborhood watchman who killed the unarmed black teenager, the judge ruled on Thursday.
Seating an impartial jury in the trial of George Zimmerman in a central Florida court may not be as problematic as many had initially feared, despite blanket media coverage that captivated the United States for much of 2012.
The search for potential jurors who claim they know little or nothing at all about the shooting has been moving slowly after jury selection began on Monday in Seminole County criminal court.
But in a sign of progress, some potential jurors said they knew the basic outlines of the case and needed to be prodded by lawyers to recall any specific details.
The judge's order to sequester the jury of six and four alternates means that all ten people eventually chosen will be kept in a private location such as a hotel for the duration of the trial, which is expected to last two to four weeks.
Circuit Court Judge Debra Nelson has said the identities of the jurors will not be made public.
No jurors have been selected so far to hear evidence in a case in which Zimmerman claims self-defense in the February 26, 2012 shooting. Zimmerman, a 29-year-old light-skinned Hispanic, faces up to life imprisonment if convicted of the second-degree murder charge.
"The judge is definitely trying to move things along," said David Weinstein, a former state prosecutor now in private practice in Miami with the firm Clarke Silvergate.
Typically, prosecutors and defense lawyers, guided by a judge, select a panel within a day or two although that can drag out in high-profile cases where judges know intense media attention can influence potential jurors.
On Thursday morning, a white recent high school graduate said he surmised a few details from Facebook, such as that a black person was shot and that Zimmerman was the shooter. He said the topic was very controversial among fellow students at school but he recognized many were just making up "facts."
Some 20 prospective jurors have made it through the first round of questioning, focused largely on their exposure and reaction to widespread pre-trial publicity. Ten more are needed before a group of 30 will move on to further questioning about their views on issues related to the case, such as race and gun laws.
The case drew intense scrutiny and ignited protests because police initially declined to arrest Zimmerman, saying he acted in self-defense during a confrontation with Martin in a gated community in the central Florida town of Sanford.
Some potential jurors, like a middle-aged woman who works in a hospital operating room, told the court she only catches a few minutes of news in the morning before her commute. She and others described a daily work schedule that left little time for television viewing.
One prospect, referred to in court as B-72, even apologized twice for his professed ignorance about the case.
"I know it sounds bad," he said. "I didn't care about it. It didn't involve me. It didn't involve anyone I know."
A black woman referred to as R-65 claimed to have heard nothing about the case until a prayer was offered for both the Martin and Zimmerman families by her pastor at church. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/13/us-usa-florida-shooting-idUSBRE95C0UB20130613 Though not "standard" in general, sequestering the jury is very common in high-profile cases. i have never seen it done, and the judge originally said that she would not sequester the jury in this case even though it was "high profile." i imagine the jurors expressing fear for their safety changed her mind. If you've never seen a jury sequestered, you haven't followed many court proceedings. its an incredible burden on the jurors and their family to have them holed up in a hotel...why are you guys acting like this isnt rare? especially since the court did a 180 on this issue because she felt it was inappropriate at first to sequester them. I was actually quite shocked at her initial position. I am no lawyer but with so much publicity, so many death threats, and emotions running so high, what was the justification not to do it in the first place? If it is needed in any case it should be this one. telling jurors that they have to leave their lives for a month (limited or no contact with family, limited or no contact with friends, only regulated tv/radio, etc.) is not something judges are willing to do without substantial justification. she originally granted anonymity of the jurors which covers most of the concerns expressed. the "death threats" is overstated in my opinion. How much of a death threat do you feel is required before the judge takes it seriously then?
lol. none of the jurors have received death threats as far as i have seen (they are anonymous). take it a notch down.
|
On June 15 2013 02:10 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2013 02:06 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 15 2013 01:17 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 15 2013 00:55 Zaqwe wrote:On June 15 2013 00:50 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 14 2013 23:59 Rho_ wrote:On June 14 2013 06:29 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 14 2013 05:49 xDaunt wrote:On June 14 2013 04:51 dAPhREAk wrote:BIG NEWS - jury to be sequestered. This is not standard. Trayvon Martin murder trial jury to be sequestered: judge The jury in the racially-charged Trayvon Martin case in Florida will be sequestered during the murder trial of the neighborhood watchman who killed the unarmed black teenager, the judge ruled on Thursday.
Seating an impartial jury in the trial of George Zimmerman in a central Florida court may not be as problematic as many had initially feared, despite blanket media coverage that captivated the United States for much of 2012.
The search for potential jurors who claim they know little or nothing at all about the shooting has been moving slowly after jury selection began on Monday in Seminole County criminal court.
But in a sign of progress, some potential jurors said they knew the basic outlines of the case and needed to be prodded by lawyers to recall any specific details.
The judge's order to sequester the jury of six and four alternates means that all ten people eventually chosen will be kept in a private location such as a hotel for the duration of the trial, which is expected to last two to four weeks.
Circuit Court Judge Debra Nelson has said the identities of the jurors will not be made public.
No jurors have been selected so far to hear evidence in a case in which Zimmerman claims self-defense in the February 26, 2012 shooting. Zimmerman, a 29-year-old light-skinned Hispanic, faces up to life imprisonment if convicted of the second-degree murder charge.
"The judge is definitely trying to move things along," said David Weinstein, a former state prosecutor now in private practice in Miami with the firm Clarke Silvergate.
Typically, prosecutors and defense lawyers, guided by a judge, select a panel within a day or two although that can drag out in high-profile cases where judges know intense media attention can influence potential jurors.
On Thursday morning, a white recent high school graduate said he surmised a few details from Facebook, such as that a black person was shot and that Zimmerman was the shooter. He said the topic was very controversial among fellow students at school but he recognized many were just making up "facts."
Some 20 prospective jurors have made it through the first round of questioning, focused largely on their exposure and reaction to widespread pre-trial publicity. Ten more are needed before a group of 30 will move on to further questioning about their views on issues related to the case, such as race and gun laws.
The case drew intense scrutiny and ignited protests because police initially declined to arrest Zimmerman, saying he acted in self-defense during a confrontation with Martin in a gated community in the central Florida town of Sanford.
Some potential jurors, like a middle-aged woman who works in a hospital operating room, told the court she only catches a few minutes of news in the morning before her commute. She and others described a daily work schedule that left little time for television viewing.
One prospect, referred to in court as B-72, even apologized twice for his professed ignorance about the case.
"I know it sounds bad," he said. "I didn't care about it. It didn't involve me. It didn't involve anyone I know."
A black woman referred to as R-65 claimed to have heard nothing about the case until a prayer was offered for both the Martin and Zimmerman families by her pastor at church. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/13/us-usa-florida-shooting-idUSBRE95C0UB20130613 Though not "standard" in general, sequestering the jury is very common in high-profile cases. i have never seen it done, and the judge originally said that she would not sequester the jury in this case even though it was "high profile." i imagine the jurors expressing fear for their safety changed her mind. If you've never seen a jury sequestered, you haven't followed many court proceedings. its an incredible burden on the jurors and their family to have them holed up in a hotel...why are you guys acting like this isnt rare? especially since the court did a 180 on this issue because she felt it was inappropriate at first to sequester them. I was actually quite shocked at her initial position. I am no lawyer but with so much publicity, so many death threats, and emotions running so high, what was the justification not to do it in the first place? If it is needed in any case it should be this one. telling jurors that they have to leave their lives for a month (limited or no contact with family, limited or no contact with friends, only regulated tv/radio, etc.) is not something judges are willing to do without substantial justification. she originally granted anonymity of the jurors which covers most of the concerns expressed. the "death threats" is overstated in my opinion. How much of a death threat do you feel is required before the judge takes it seriously then? lol. none of the jurors have received death threats as far as i have seen (they are anonymous). take it a notch down.
So you don't believe the juror are being threatened at all?
|
On June 15 2013 02:25 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2013 02:10 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 15 2013 02:06 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 15 2013 01:17 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 15 2013 00:55 Zaqwe wrote:On June 15 2013 00:50 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 14 2013 23:59 Rho_ wrote:On June 14 2013 06:29 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 14 2013 05:49 xDaunt wrote:Though not "standard" in general, sequestering the jury is very common in high-profile cases. i have never seen it done, and the judge originally said that she would not sequester the jury in this case even though it was "high profile." i imagine the jurors expressing fear for their safety changed her mind. If you've never seen a jury sequestered, you haven't followed many court proceedings. its an incredible burden on the jurors and their family to have them holed up in a hotel...why are you guys acting like this isnt rare? especially since the court did a 180 on this issue because she felt it was inappropriate at first to sequester them. I was actually quite shocked at her initial position. I am no lawyer but with so much publicity, so many death threats, and emotions running so high, what was the justification not to do it in the first place? If it is needed in any case it should be this one. telling jurors that they have to leave their lives for a month (limited or no contact with family, limited or no contact with friends, only regulated tv/radio, etc.) is not something judges are willing to do without substantial justification. she originally granted anonymity of the jurors which covers most of the concerns expressed. the "death threats" is overstated in my opinion. How much of a death threat do you feel is required before the judge takes it seriously then? lol. none of the jurors have received death threats as far as i have seen (they are anonymous). take it a notch down. So you don't believe the juror are being threatened at all?
Or that they would be quite likely to be threatened if they weren't anonymous?
Zimmerman got death threats, why wouldn't the people who might let him walk free?
|
TLADT24920 Posts
On June 15 2013 02:25 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2013 02:10 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 15 2013 02:06 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 15 2013 01:17 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 15 2013 00:55 Zaqwe wrote:On June 15 2013 00:50 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 14 2013 23:59 Rho_ wrote:On June 14 2013 06:29 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 14 2013 05:49 xDaunt wrote:Though not "standard" in general, sequestering the jury is very common in high-profile cases. i have never seen it done, and the judge originally said that she would not sequester the jury in this case even though it was "high profile." i imagine the jurors expressing fear for their safety changed her mind. If you've never seen a jury sequestered, you haven't followed many court proceedings. its an incredible burden on the jurors and their family to have them holed up in a hotel...why are you guys acting like this isnt rare? especially since the court did a 180 on this issue because she felt it was inappropriate at first to sequester them. I was actually quite shocked at her initial position. I am no lawyer but with so much publicity, so many death threats, and emotions running so high, what was the justification not to do it in the first place? If it is needed in any case it should be this one. telling jurors that they have to leave their lives for a month (limited or no contact with family, limited or no contact with friends, only regulated tv/radio, etc.) is not something judges are willing to do without substantial justification. she originally granted anonymity of the jurors which covers most of the concerns expressed. the "death threats" is overstated in my opinion. How much of a death threat do you feel is required before the judge takes it seriously then? lol. none of the jurors have received death threats as far as i have seen (they are anonymous). take it a notch down. So you don't believe the juror are being threatened at all?
he makes a valid point. They are anonymous so they can't be threatened unless they openly talking about how they are jurors for the case.
|
On June 15 2013 02:25 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2013 02:10 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 15 2013 02:06 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 15 2013 01:17 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 15 2013 00:55 Zaqwe wrote:On June 15 2013 00:50 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 14 2013 23:59 Rho_ wrote:On June 14 2013 06:29 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 14 2013 05:49 xDaunt wrote:Though not "standard" in general, sequestering the jury is very common in high-profile cases. i have never seen it done, and the judge originally said that she would not sequester the jury in this case even though it was "high profile." i imagine the jurors expressing fear for their safety changed her mind. If you've never seen a jury sequestered, you haven't followed many court proceedings. its an incredible burden on the jurors and their family to have them holed up in a hotel...why are you guys acting like this isnt rare? especially since the court did a 180 on this issue because she felt it was inappropriate at first to sequester them. I was actually quite shocked at her initial position. I am no lawyer but with so much publicity, so many death threats, and emotions running so high, what was the justification not to do it in the first place? If it is needed in any case it should be this one. telling jurors that they have to leave their lives for a month (limited or no contact with family, limited or no contact with friends, only regulated tv/radio, etc.) is not something judges are willing to do without substantial justification. she originally granted anonymity of the jurors which covers most of the concerns expressed. the "death threats" is overstated in my opinion. How much of a death threat do you feel is required before the judge takes it seriously then? lol. none of the jurors have received death threats as far as i have seen (they are anonymous). take it a notch down. So you don't believe the juror are being threatened at all?
i havent seen any indication that they have been threatened, nor have i seen any juror say they were threatened. so, no, i dont believe they have been threatened. i imagine they do have a reasonable fear of what will happen if they acquit since the community is such shit though, which is why anonymity is a must and sequestration is not a bad idea.
|
On June 15 2013 02:29 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2013 02:25 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 15 2013 02:10 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 15 2013 02:06 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 15 2013 01:17 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 15 2013 00:55 Zaqwe wrote:On June 15 2013 00:50 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 14 2013 23:59 Rho_ wrote:On June 14 2013 06:29 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 14 2013 05:49 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Though not "standard" in general, sequestering the jury is very common in high-profile cases. i have never seen it done, and the judge originally said that she would not sequester the jury in this case even though it was "high profile." i imagine the jurors expressing fear for their safety changed her mind. If you've never seen a jury sequestered, you haven't followed many court proceedings. its an incredible burden on the jurors and their family to have them holed up in a hotel...why are you guys acting like this isnt rare? especially since the court did a 180 on this issue because she felt it was inappropriate at first to sequester them. I was actually quite shocked at her initial position. I am no lawyer but with so much publicity, so many death threats, and emotions running so high, what was the justification not to do it in the first place? If it is needed in any case it should be this one. telling jurors that they have to leave their lives for a month (limited or no contact with family, limited or no contact with friends, only regulated tv/radio, etc.) is not something judges are willing to do without substantial justification. she originally granted anonymity of the jurors which covers most of the concerns expressed. the "death threats" is overstated in my opinion. How much of a death threat do you feel is required before the judge takes it seriously then? lol. none of the jurors have received death threats as far as i have seen (they are anonymous). take it a notch down. So you don't believe the juror are being threatened at all? Or that they would be quite likely to be threatened if they weren't anonymous? Zimmerman got death threats, why wouldn't the people who might let him walk free?
i hope i havent given then indication that i dont think they should be anonymous. i do think that the chances of repercussion are slim, but better safe than sorry. this isnt some fiction novel where crazies go after the jury. if there is an acquittal then they are likely to go after zimmerman and his attorneys, not the jury.
edit: to be clear, i think anonymity is more important for preventing people from trying to influence them rather than a fear of harm to them--although those could go hand in hand.
|
On June 15 2013 02:33 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2013 02:29 Millitron wrote:On June 15 2013 02:25 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 15 2013 02:10 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 15 2013 02:06 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 15 2013 01:17 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 15 2013 00:55 Zaqwe wrote:On June 15 2013 00:50 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 14 2013 23:59 Rho_ wrote:On June 14 2013 06:29 dAPhREAk wrote:
[quote]
i have never seen it done, and the judge originally said that she would not sequester the jury in this case even though it was "high profile." i imagine the jurors expressing fear for their safety changed her mind. If you've never seen a jury sequestered, you haven't followed many court proceedings. its an incredible burden on the jurors and their family to have them holed up in a hotel...why are you guys acting like this isnt rare? especially since the court did a 180 on this issue because she felt it was inappropriate at first to sequester them. I was actually quite shocked at her initial position. I am no lawyer but with so much publicity, so many death threats, and emotions running so high, what was the justification not to do it in the first place? If it is needed in any case it should be this one. telling jurors that they have to leave their lives for a month (limited or no contact with family, limited or no contact with friends, only regulated tv/radio, etc.) is not something judges are willing to do without substantial justification. she originally granted anonymity of the jurors which covers most of the concerns expressed. the "death threats" is overstated in my opinion. How much of a death threat do you feel is required before the judge takes it seriously then? lol. none of the jurors have received death threats as far as i have seen (they are anonymous). take it a notch down. So you don't believe the juror are being threatened at all? Or that they would be quite likely to be threatened if they weren't anonymous? Zimmerman got death threats, why wouldn't the people who might let him walk free? i hope i havent given then indication that i dont think they should be anonymous. i do think that the chances of repercussion are slim, but better safe than sorry. this isnt some fiction novel where crazies go after the jury. if there is an acquittal then they are likely to go after zimmerman and his attorneys, not the jury. edit: to be clear, i think anonymity is more important for preventing people from trying to influence them rather than a fear of harm to them--although those could go hand in hand.
You have a great deal of faith in people for thinking they would target Zimmerman or his lawyer specifically.
I fear that any acts of violence will actually be even more widespread than just targeting members of the court. There is a serious potential that even random people will be targeted simply for being a police officer, government employee, or even due to the colour of their skin. There have already been random attacks on White people where things like "justice for Trayvon!" are shouted.
It is likely that the "justice for Trayvon" crowd would harm anyone they could get their hands on, jury included, if the case doesn't go their way.
|
On June 15 2013 02:47 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2013 02:33 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 15 2013 02:29 Millitron wrote:On June 15 2013 02:25 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 15 2013 02:10 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 15 2013 02:06 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 15 2013 01:17 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 15 2013 00:55 Zaqwe wrote:On June 15 2013 00:50 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 14 2013 23:59 Rho_ wrote:
[quote]
If you've never seen a jury sequestered, you haven't followed many court proceedings. its an incredible burden on the jurors and their family to have them holed up in a hotel...why are you guys acting like this isnt rare? especially since the court did a 180 on this issue because she felt it was inappropriate at first to sequester them. I was actually quite shocked at her initial position. I am no lawyer but with so much publicity, so many death threats, and emotions running so high, what was the justification not to do it in the first place? If it is needed in any case it should be this one. telling jurors that they have to leave their lives for a month (limited or no contact with family, limited or no contact with friends, only regulated tv/radio, etc.) is not something judges are willing to do without substantial justification. she originally granted anonymity of the jurors which covers most of the concerns expressed. the "death threats" is overstated in my opinion. How much of a death threat do you feel is required before the judge takes it seriously then? lol. none of the jurors have received death threats as far as i have seen (they are anonymous). take it a notch down. So you don't believe the juror are being threatened at all? Or that they would be quite likely to be threatened if they weren't anonymous? Zimmerman got death threats, why wouldn't the people who might let him walk free? i hope i havent given then indication that i dont think they should be anonymous. i do think that the chances of repercussion are slim, but better safe than sorry. this isnt some fiction novel where crazies go after the jury. if there is an acquittal then they are likely to go after zimmerman and his attorneys, not the jury. edit: to be clear, i think anonymity is more important for preventing people from trying to influence them rather than a fear of harm to them--although those could go hand in hand. You have a great deal of faith in people for thinking they would target Zimmerman or his lawyer specifically. I fear that any acts of violence will actually be even more widespread than just targeting members of the court. There is a serious potential that even random people will be targeted simply for being a police officer, government employee, or even due to the colour of their skin. There have already been random attacks on White people where things like "justice for Trayvon!" are shouted. It is likely that the "justice for Trayvon" crowd would harm anyone they could get their hands on, jury included, if the case doesn't go their way.
i think it would fall into two categories: (1) people who target other individuals specifically (least likely scenario); and (2) random acts of violence. i imagine the former would target zimmerman and if unable to reach him then those they associate with his defense (attorneys)--i do not think they would target the jurors. for the latter, they are just opportunistic.
i really hope this doesnt turn into a riot. trayvon's mother has been very expressive with the community since the beginning saying that she just wanted a trial and didn't want violence. i hope people listen to her.
|
Potential Jurors For Trayvon Martin Case Asked To Return Next Week
Jury selection continued Friday in the case of George Zimmerman who is on trial for the shooting death of unarmed Miami teen Trayvon Martin.
A total of 23 potential jurors, individually interviewed by prosecutors and Zimmerman’s defense attorneys during the past week, were told to return to a Florida courthouse next Tuesday for further questioning.
Judge Debra Nelson asked them not to discuss the case or selection process with anyone.
Of the candidates, 16 are white; four are black; two are Hispanic; and one is Asian-American. The racial and ethnic makeup of potential jurors is relevant because prosecutors claim Zimmerman profiled 17-year-old Trayvon Martin when he followed him through his gated community shortly before the unarmed teen was fatally shot. The case prompted public outrage, as some critics believed authorities initially didn’t investigate the case thoroughly because Martin was a black teen from the Miami area.
During questioning of a potential juror Friday, defense attorney Mark O’Mara specifically asked a man in his 20s who identified as mixed race what his racial background was. The man said German, Filipino, Chinese and Spanish.
The group of 23 jury candidates who were asked to return also skewed overwhelmingly female and middle-aged.
Prosecutors and defense attorneys want to build a pool of 40 potential jurors who have been screened for any influence of pretrial publicity before they move to a second round of questioning. Attorneys had interviewed 37 potential jurors over five days by the lunch break on Friday.
At least 75 potential jurors already have been dismissed.
Zimmerman, a 29-year-old former neighborhood watch volunteer, is pleading not guilty to second-degree murder, claiming he shot Martin in self-defense.
A 44-day delay in Zimmerman’s arrest led to protests around the nation. Some questioned whether the Sanford Police Department was investigating the case seriously since Martin was a black teen from the Miami area. Zimmerman identifies himself as Hispanic.
Attorneys need to find six jurors and four alternates. In Florida, 12 jurors are required only for criminal trials involving capital cases, when the death penalty is being considered.
The judge said Thursday that jurors picked to serve will be sequestered during the two weeks to a month that the trial will last. They will have limited contact with their families, they will spend the night at a hotel and their actions will be monitored by court security outside the courtroom during the duration of the trial.
http://miami.cbslocal.com/2013/06/14/jury-still-being-picked-in-trayvon-martin-case/
|
zimmerman is probably happy about that racial makeup (WASPs ftw), but probably isnt liking the gender disparity (too many potential moms).
|
Wickham: Lawyer for Trayvon's parents plays key role
Benjamin Crump, the highest profile lawyer in the Trayvon Martin murder case, is just a spectator in the courtroom where the man who killed the unarmed 17-year-old boy is about to be tried. But the soft-spoken attorney could play the biggest role in shaping the outcome of this racially tinged affair.
Crump is the legal adviser to Sybrina Fulton and Tracy Martin, the divorced parents of the black teenager who was shot to death in February 2012 by George Zimmerman, a white Hispanic neighborhood watch volunteer. Until the night young Martin and Zimmerman had their deadly encounter, Sanford was best known as the end of the line for Amtrak's Auto Train, which brings vacationers and their vehicles to central Florida. Now it is ground zero for a murder trial steeped in questions about vigilantism and racial profiling.
Crump has had a lot to do with putting this murder case on the media's radar. He held news conferences to demand Zimmerman's arrest, led marches that attracted the support of national activists such as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, and echoed his clients' demand for justice on national television.
With the disarming demeanor of a country lawyer, Crump first gained national attention in 2006 when he represented the family of Martin Lee Anderson, a 14-year-old boy who died after being roughed up by guards at a Florida boot camp for troubled youngsters. Crump's handling of that case caused the state to close the boot camps and give the Anderson family a $5 million settlement. The family also got $2.4 million from the county sheriff's department that ran the camp where Anderson died.
This year, Crump's push for justice in the Martin case resulted in the neighborhood association of the community where the teenager was killed to reach an out-of-court settlement with his family. But as aggressive as Crump has been in seeking monetary compensation for Martin's family, he is even more tireless in his efforts to make this case less about race than the quest for justice.
"We don't care what the racial makeup of the jury is," Crump told me during a brief interview outside the courtroom where a jury that will render a verdict in this murder case was being selected. "We just want a jury that can put aside its biases, consider the evidence and deliver a fair verdict."
Crump said if the trial is "fair and transparent," Martin's parents will accept the jury's decision – even if it finds Zimmerman not guilty.
"They will accept the rule of law," Crump said of his clients, who are not giving interviews during the trial. "But who knows what is in (a juror's) heart? So that is why they are praying for a fair and impartial jury."
Crump said Martin's mother prays that God will help her forgive Zimmerman for pumping a 9 mm bullet into her son's chest. Zimmerman says he fired in self-defense. Prosecutors argue that he precipitated the deadly shooting by pursuing the teenager simply because he was walking through the neighborhood during a light rain with the hood of his sweatshirt pulled over his head.
What's certain, Crump said, is that he and Martin's family will do everything they can to urge their supporters to accept the verdict with dignity – even if it frees Zimmerman. Moments later, Crump called for a peaceful response to the verdict during a television interview.
Then, as he left the TV set, Crump looked at me and said: "I think the jury will render a just verdict, and when it does, I hope the folks on the other side won't act up, either.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/06/17/trayvon-martin-lawyer-dewayne-wickham/2428157/
added emphasis:
Crump said if the trial is "fair and transparent," Martin's parents will accept the jury's decision – even if it finds Zimmerman not guilty.
"They will accept the rule of law," Crump said of his clients, who are not giving interviews during the trial. "But who knows what is in (a juror's) heart? So that is why they are praying for a fair and impartial jury."
What's certain, Crump said, is that he and Martin's family will do everything they can to urge their supporters to accept the verdict with dignity – even if it frees Zimmerman. Moments later, Crump called for a peaceful response to the verdict during a television interview.
Then, as he left the TV set, Crump looked at me and said: "I think the jury will render a just verdict, and when it does, I hope the folks on the other side won't act up, either.
|
TLADT24920 Posts
hmm interesting. It's good to see that they believe it's less about race and that they want the trial to be just as well as wanting supporters to accept the final verdict but until the trial commences and the verdict is in, it's hard to know just how much these words will hold.
|
On June 15 2013 06:27 dAPhREAk wrote:
zimmerman is probably happy about that racial makeup (WASPs ftw), but probably isnt liking the gender disparity (too many potential moms).
Potential moms want safe communities.
|
On June 19 2013 01:46 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2013 06:27 dAPhREAk wrote:
zimmerman is probably happy about that racial makeup (WASPs ftw), but probably isnt liking the gender disparity (too many potential moms). Potential moms want safe communities.
Any jury trial -- whether it be criminal or civil -- always involves a lot of subtext. "The safety of the community" is perhaps the most important one and something that civil litigators (especially personal injury attorneys) deal with all of the time. Attorneys who know what they are doing design their trial presentations psychologically so as to appeal to the part of every juror that values a safe community. Typically the side that does that the best will win.
In this case, the issue definitely cuts both ways. We'll see which set of attorneys masters it.
|
On June 19 2013 01:46 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2013 06:27 dAPhREAk wrote:
zimmerman is probably happy about that racial makeup (WASPs ftw), but probably isnt liking the gender disparity (too many potential moms). Potential moms want safe communities.
when you have a dead/injured child as the victim/plaintiff and a crying mother in the audience, a defense attorney generally doesn't want females on the jury. there are, of course, exceptions, but they are rare. i am not sure any attorney would disagree with this.
potential moms want safe communities. correct. but then you are hoping the potential moms ignore all the emotional tugging at their heart strings and think logically about whether zimmerman was protecting the community (highly questionable). moreover, i would think that potential moms would NOT want an armed man walking around their community....that might just be my California upbringing though. the idea of armed people in my neighborhood does not make me feel safe.
|
|
|
|
|
all females. five white, one black or hispanic.
i wonder how zimmerman and his counsel are feeling about his chances with that jury.
another interesting tidbit, even the FBI is poo-pooing the use of voice technology (although he is paid by the defense):
On June 6, defense expert Hirotaka Nakasone, an audio engineer for the FBI, expressed his doubts about using the recordings.
"A screaming voice is too far for us to address," Nakasone said. "It might mislead in the worst case."
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
