HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Yeah, at least one juror ...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 01:32 PM

 

Yeah, at least one juror is a POS

Report: Juror In Zimmerman Case Signs With Literary Agent

The jury for the George Zimmerman delivered its verdict on Saturday evening and on Monday, a literary agent announced that Juror B37 aims to write a book about the proceedings.

More at link.

68 replies, 3743 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 68 replies Author Time Post
Reply Yeah, at least one juror is a POS (Original post)
Blackford Jul 2013 OP
hlthe2b Jul 2013 #1
Duer 157099 Jul 2013 #2
Blue_Tires Jul 2013 #4
Blackford Jul 2013 #5
Shrek Jul 2013 #7
Duer 157099 Jul 2013 #11
JI7 Jul 2013 #48
JI7 Jul 2013 #45
GreenStormCloud Jul 2013 #51
customerserviceguy Jul 2013 #63
chemenger Jul 2013 #68
Sheldon Cooper Jul 2013 #3
Comrade Grumpy Jul 2013 #15
Whisp Jul 2013 #17
TeeYiYi Jul 2013 #23
HangOnKids Jul 2013 #39
pintobean Jul 2013 #40
Apophis Jul 2013 #24
quinnox Jul 2013 #6
avebury Jul 2013 #8
GreenStormCloud Jul 2013 #9
Blackford Jul 2013 #10
GreenStormCloud Jul 2013 #16
Blackford Jul 2013 #19
GreenStormCloud Jul 2013 #22
Dawgs Jul 2013 #28
GreenStormCloud Jul 2013 #29
Anansi1171 Jul 2013 #55
Kingofalldems Jul 2013 #61
quinnox Jul 2013 #18
GreenStormCloud Jul 2013 #21
VOX Jul 2013 #66
TDale313 Jul 2013 #12
PoliticAverse Jul 2013 #52
TDale313 Jul 2013 #54
customerserviceguy Jul 2013 #64
Anansi1171 Jul 2013 #57
TDale313 Jul 2013 #59
Comrade Grumpy Jul 2013 #13
Blackford Jul 2013 #14
Anansi1171 Jul 2013 #58
Spazito Jul 2013 #20
GreenStormCloud Jul 2013 #27
Spazito Jul 2013 #30
GreenStormCloud Jul 2013 #32
Spazito Jul 2013 #33
GreenStormCloud Jul 2013 #37
Spazito Jul 2013 #38
GreenStormCloud Jul 2013 #49
Spazito Jul 2013 #50
onenote Jul 2013 #25
BainsBane Jul 2013 #26
Spazito Jul 2013 #31
grasswire Jul 2013 #34
TeeYiYi Jul 2013 #36
customerserviceguy Jul 2013 #65
Nye Bevan Jul 2013 #35
leftstreet Jul 2013 #41
Nye Bevan Jul 2013 #43
leftstreet Jul 2013 #46
Marr Jul 2013 #42
LittleBlue Jul 2013 #44
JI7 Jul 2013 #47
Anansi1171 Jul 2013 #53
nyquil_man Jul 2013 #56
Raine Jul 2013 #60
mwrguy Jul 2013 #62
laundry_queen Jul 2013 #67

Response to Blackford (Original post)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 01:34 PM

1. Well, then their anonymity is bound to be breached and they will have to own up to their ignorance

and biases.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blackford (Original post)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 01:36 PM

2. More about B37

B-37 is a white woman who volunteers rescuing animals. She is married to an attorney and has two adult children. She said she and her husband used to have concealed weapons permits. During the last round of questioning, she said she had an issue with the type of weapons people are allowed to carry. She also thought weapons' training was inadequate for people seeking permits. "It should become harder," she said.


http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2013/07/13/us/ap-us-neighborhood-watch-jury.html?hp&_r=1&

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duer 157099 (Reply #2)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 01:43 PM

4. Yeah, I'd figure CCW holders would look out for their own...

no surprise here...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue_Tires (Reply #4)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 01:44 PM

5. Just watch it happen right here on DU

 

I've noticed they travel in packs, sorta like combat patrol.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duer 157099 (Reply #2)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 01:48 PM

7. I might have expected her to favor the prosecution

After the defense witness described his gunshot experiments on live animals.

If she volunteers at a rescue that must have bothered her at least a little.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Shrek (Reply #7)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 01:50 PM

11. That's also what I had expected

Guess not

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Shrek (Reply #7)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 04:51 PM

48. i have known a few animal rights people who were racist, Brigitte Bardot is a famous one

she is anti gay, racist etc.

but i guess their bigotry is stronger than support for animals.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duer 157099 (Reply #2)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 04:48 PM

45. this must be one of the ones that the prosecution tried to remove but wasn't able to

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JI7 (Reply #45)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 06:25 PM

51. Why do you find my point unbelievable?

It is more probable than having insider access.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duer 157099 (Reply #2)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 09:34 PM

63. I remember hearing that one juror

was scribbling away wildly in notebooks. She might not be able to keep them at the end of the trial, but it wouldn't have been too difficult to photograph them, especially if they went with her to a sequestered hotel room. Besides, writing stuff down makes it easier to remember, and she certainly could have done that every night before lights out.

The only problem I have with it is, when was she approached or did the approaching? If it is immediately after the trial, then I suppose I'm OK with it, but I'd sure like someone to investigate that. It certainly could affect the outcome if one were planning that while trying to get on the jury.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duer 157099 (Reply #2)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 10:24 PM

68. And from what I just heard on Lawrence O'Donnell, B37 should never have

been seated on the jury. Sounds like she was biased for the defence from the outset. Listening to Rev. Sharpton now. He's asking questions that must be answered. This was never a trial ... it was a sham right from the start.

I am so angry over this that it has my stomach tied up in knots.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blackford (Original post)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 01:38 PM

3. All six of them are POS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sheldon Cooper (Reply #3)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 01:55 PM

15. Get a grip.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Comrade Grumpy (Reply #15)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 01:57 PM

17. I'm also gripping the fact they are all pieces of shit. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whisp (Reply #17)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 02:10 PM

23. I, too, have a firm grip on that fact. ..nt

TYY

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Comrade Grumpy (Reply #15)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 04:31 PM

39. That Might Fly In The PD Dude Not Here On DU

 

Do you post in the PD comments? Sounds like your cup of tea.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HangOnKids (Reply #39)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 04:37 PM

40. You never change

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sheldon Cooper (Reply #3)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 02:12 PM

24. Yep.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blackford (Original post)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 01:45 PM

6. Yep. And likely more books to come from Zimmerman's scumbag lawyers and Zimmy himself

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blackford (Original post)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 01:48 PM

8. As much as I am against book burning, I will make

an exception in this case. Hopefully it will drop to the $1 pile like Palin's book.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blackford (Original post)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 01:48 PM

9. What's wrong with writing a book about it?

I don't see any reason why she shouldn't. I bet she will be busy with a ghost writer and have it out for publication by the end of the month. Make money while it is there to be made.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #9)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 01:50 PM

10. Well, when it's been revealed you are a CCW carrying racist who thought the demonstrations

 

demanding a trial were "riots", I guess nothing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blackford (Reply #10)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 01:57 PM

16. I take it you want to do away with the First Amendment?

Only those whom you like can write books?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #16)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 01:58 PM

19. Oh good grief

 

I don't suffer such foolishness as you are demonstrating.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blackford (Reply #19)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 02:09 PM

22. Yet you are solidly against her writing a book.

It IS her right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #22)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 02:21 PM

28. "Writing a book" isn't the bad part.

Sad that someone wouldn't understand that on DU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dawgs (Reply #28)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 02:24 PM

29. What is wrong with selling the book?

If the public wants to buy it, that is the decision of many individuals. I think many would like to know what went on in deliberations. Are you one of those who wishes to limit what books the public may buy?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #29)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 06:42 PM

55. We are blessed to have you here to point that out!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #16)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 07:29 PM

61. Wow, way to make stuff up

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #9)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 01:58 PM

18. sounds like you might be anxious to grab a copy

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quinnox (Reply #18)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 02:07 PM

21. No. Wait until it is on deep discount due to lack of sales.

I just don't think that there is anything wrong with her writing a book. Many here seem to think that only those with whom they agree should be able to write anything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #9)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 10:03 PM

66. "Make money while it is there to be made." -- how Ayn Randian.

Why not, "Sa'matter, don'tcha like the First Amendment"? (Oh, wait, you used that one.) Try, "It's a free country," or "Why not?" (Wait, you sorta used that one, too.) Maybe "How can it hurt"? or "What's the difference if she does or doesn't"?

Libertarian fail.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blackford (Original post)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 01:53 PM

12. May be an unpopular opinion,

But I have no problem with any of the jurors writing a book. In fact, while I won't buy it, I will be curious to hear from them. I am heartsick over this verdict, but frankly blame the prosecution, Sanford LE, and the way Florida Self Defense law is written more than the Jury. I'm prepare to get flamed for that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TDale313 (Reply #12)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 06:32 PM

52. I am very curious as to what happened in the jury room, but I wouldn't feel good

about enriching one of the jurors.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PoliticAverse (Reply #52)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 06:38 PM

54. No, and that's why I said I won't be buying it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PoliticAverse (Reply #52)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 09:36 PM

64. If there is enough biographical data about the others

Their lives may be placed in jeopardy by this one, and they'll get squat for it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TDale313 (Reply #12)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 06:47 PM

57. Why would you get flamed for a fair assessment?

The fact that you are heartsick over the verdict, makes you miles apart from the Zimmerman fans here on DU or anywhere. At least you perceive an inherent injustice in the letter of the law and how it's applied, likely based on a general sense of compassion to the victim at the very least.

That's clearly not where the vocal supporters are coming from.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Anansi1171 (Reply #57)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 07:19 PM

59. Thank you.

Everything about this case has been inherently unjust. I've actually been surprised by how much this case personally outraged and touched me. The fact that it took huge public pressure to even get charges filed was so, so wrong- and may have been part of what hurt the state's case. I guess I just wasn't quite as ready to condemn the Jury without knowing why they decided the way they did and acknowledging that the injustice here was far larger than these six women.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blackford (Original post)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 01:54 PM

13. What an intemperate OP.

I wish the verdict had been different, but prosecutors had a tough row to hoe. The jurors acted on the evidence and the judge's instructions. Other than that, we really don't know what their thought process was.

As for the juror who is signing a book deal, well, that's the American way, isn't it? Profit if you can.

Calling the juror a piece of shit is just kindergarten level, except for its foulness. Maybe you could articulate your complaints more artfully.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Comrade Grumpy (Reply #13)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 01:54 PM

14. Do some research on this POS

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blackford (Reply #14)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 07:14 PM

58. She is a POS! Completely pompous, self-serving and full of shit! This comment from the TPM article..

...is interesting:

TXfemmom JHoughton1 • 4 hours ago −

"This woman is the one who took copious notes throughout the thing...often the "experts" wondered how she could really be paying attention as she was so busy writing all the time. She obviously went into the trial intending to make a lot of money off of it and not intending to do the right thing. The law needs to be changed so jurors cannot profit in any way from having served on a jury, to keep ringers off the juries."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blackford (Original post)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 02:07 PM

20. Here's an additional tidbit that is, to say the very least, interesting...

"The juror contacted Martin on Sunday, “referred by a high ranking producer at one of the morning shows.”" Who has immediate access to a "high ranking producer at one of the morning shows" one has to wonder? Which producer on what network? Who contacted whom? If it was the producer, how did that person know the identity of the juror and if it was the juror or her 'attorney husband' how did they have such immediate access to the 'high ranking producer'?

http://www.mediabistro.com/galleycat/george-zimmerman-juror-to-write-book_b74138

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spazito (Reply #20)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 02:19 PM

27. That's easy to answer.

All he had to do was call and identify himself as the attorney husband of one of the Zimmerman jurors and say that he wanted to discuss writing a book about the trial. The staffer would have immediately flagged the call as hot and routed the call to somebody important. Staffers not only screen out junk calls, but they identify important ones.

Some years ago I happened to take a picture that had value as a news picture. I was the only one with a picture of the event. I called the news, told them what I had, they asked me to email a copy, I did, and in just a few minutes of hitting the send button the head of their photo news department was calling me. Sometimes you don't already have to know someone to get their undivided attention.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #27)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 02:26 PM

30. Uh huh, every juror's husband has a 'high ranking producer' on their speed dial I am sure....

and would feel completely at home in calling them on a Sunday. NOT.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spazito (Reply #30)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 02:30 PM

32. I doubt that the call was on a Sunday.

Likely as soon as she was selected to be on the jury, the husband began shopping for an agent. The deal would have been concluded well before the verdict was released, except for signatures.

The internet would be useful for finding an excellent literature agent.

No need for speed dial. I didn't have anyone on speed dial when I took that picture.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #32)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 02:33 PM

33. The speed dial I refer to is the one to the 'high profile producer' who was the one who...

referred the juror to the agent.

"The juror contacted Martin on Sunday, “referred by a high ranking producer at one of the morning shows.”"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spazito (Reply #33)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 04:08 PM

37. Same logic applies. All he had to do was identify himself...

...as the husband of a Zimmerman trial juror and he would have been immediately put in contact with someone with some horsepower in the organization. He would not have need to already know the person. Further, I believe that he made that call as soon as he knew that she had been selected. After all, why waste time? The sooner the book is out, the better the sales will be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #37)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 04:16 PM

38. Your post does not address the point I have made...

which is in relation to the "high ranking producer" who made the recommendation almost immediately after the verdict, sometime between late Saturday night and Sunday. You don't find that kind of immediate access to be, at the very least, worthy of question?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spazito (Reply #38)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 06:16 PM

49. I have told you how to instantly gain that kind of access.

All you need is a red-hot story, and a high ranking producer will immediately grant you access.

I got immediate access to the head of a photo news department because I had a red-hot picture. It ended up being used by CNN. Without that picture, he would have never spoken to me.

The lawyer was smart enough to know that there would be a demand for a book by his wife, searched the internet for who to sell it to, and started making calls as soon as his wife was selected for the jury.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #49)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 06:19 PM

50. I think this has become an exercise in futility...

You have put forward your point and I, mine. There is not much point in belaboring this any further, it is unlikely we will agree with each other in any substantive way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blackford (Original post)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 02:12 PM

25. there was a failed effort to pass a law in Florida that would restrict jurors from writing books

about their jury service (by requiring a "waiting period" before they could publish such a book). It was proposed in response to the Casey Anthony trial. It didn't go anywhere.

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2011-07-14/news/os-florida-juror-proposed-legislation20110714_1_ban-jurors-casey-anthony-orlando-lawmaker

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blackford (Original post)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 02:17 PM

26. I don't think that makes a person a POS

Wouldn't you take advantage of an opportunity to provide for your family, earn money to put your kids through college?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #26)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 02:27 PM

31. No, I would not seek to profit off the dead body of anyone...

call me crazy I guess.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blackford (Original post)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 02:37 PM

34. "married to an attorney" should have disqualified her.

Seriously.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Reply #34)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 02:51 PM

36. Absolutely! ..nt

TYY

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Reply #34)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 09:41 PM

65. You can see how well O'Mara played his hand

I figured when it was an all female jury that he wanted that, because he'd play to their fears about getting attacked on a dark street. Most women I know get relatively paranoid about that compared to the men I know. Perhaps we're foolhardy sometimes, but women get the socialization that they're constantly going to be attacked.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blackford (Original post)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 02:48 PM

35. Were Chris Darden and Marcia Clark "pieces of shit" for writing books about the OJ trial? (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #35)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 04:40 PM

41. Were they on the jury? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftstreet (Reply #41)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 04:47 PM

43. They were the prosecutors, but this guy was on the jury:



"Piece of shit"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #43)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 04:49 PM

46. OP was about jury members specifically n/t


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blackford (Original post)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 04:43 PM

42. I don't think it's fair to condemn the jury like this.

When you're a juror, you really are in a straight jacket. You don't get to decide on your gut, even if you think the truth is blatantly obvious. You have to go by the law, and by the evidence presented.

I don't know if the jury was wrong in its decision or not, but I definitely think these "Stand Your Ground" laws need to be done away with.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blackford (Original post)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 04:47 PM

44. Nothing wrong with this

Thousands of trial followers will want to know the reasoning behind the verdict, and some legal analysts will be interested too. Regardless of whether you thought Zim was guilty or innocent, surely many are interested in how the verdict came about.

I'll be interested in how the jury saw the trial.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blackford (Original post)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 04:50 PM

47. was this one of the Jurors ?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blackford (Original post)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 06:35 PM

53. Its not enough to have the Bagger-Humper-Zimmerman-Alcolytes lecture "the rest of us"...

...now we get to witness the most upright and defining struggle since the Passion of Christ.

All from the Westside of Sanford, Florida.

These people are unrepentant and disgusting. Yuck!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blackford (Original post)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 06:43 PM

56. "5 books from jurors who cashed in on their court cases"

http://theweek.com/article/index/246890/5-books-from-jurors-who-cashed-in-on-their-court-cases

"Could juror B37's memoir have an impact on our national conversation about race, gun control, and other issues? Judging from these past books written by jurors, we're going to vote no."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blackford (Original post)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 07:26 PM

60. after publication the next stop ... 99 Cent Store, as a "twofer". nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blackford (Original post)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 07:58 PM

62. All these jurors should spend the rest of their lives looking over their shoulders

just like the racist murderer they set free.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blackford (Original post)

Mon Jul 15, 2013, 10:15 PM

67. I personally think there should be a mandatory waiting period

before a juror can be interviewed or profit of a trial.

I was on a jury but here in Canada I was not allowed to talk about afterwards. What goes on in the jury room, stays in the jury room (I can't remember for how long, but I think, 20 years later, I'm ok).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread