Day 2 of Zimmerman Jury Selection, Questioning
Source: ABC News
By KYLE HIGHTOWER and MIKE SCHNEIDER Associated Press
SANFORD, Florida June 11, 2013 (AP)
During two days of questioning, prosecutors and George Zimmerman's attorneys have been unable to find potential jurors who hadn't heard something about the fatal shooting of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin by the neighborhood watch volunteer.
By mid-day Tuesday, the attorneys had questioned 10 potential jurors in person, and more than 40 jury candidates had been dismissed after filling out a questionnaire.
SNIP
Judge Debra Nelson has said she will keep the identities of the selected jurors anonymous but she rejected a defense request to sequester the initial jury pool of 500 residents.
After reciting details about the case she had heard in the news, Juror "B-51," a white, female retiree, told the attorneys they're going to have a hard time finding jurors who haven't heard about the case and can only hope they find residents who can keep an open mind.
Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/jury-candidates-familiarity-zimmerman-varies-19370909#.UbeD8b4o6os
They are going to have a very hard time finding six perfect jurors, plus four alternates. This trial is going to be more closely watched than the OJ trial.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
MrSlayer
(22,143 posts)Yeah, it's going to be near impossible.
DJ13
(23,671 posts)
Crabby Appleton
(5,231 posts)2nd degree homicide gets 6.
MrSlayer
(22,143 posts)I thought 12 was standard throughout the country.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)Last edited Wed Jun 12, 2013, 09:26 AM - Edit history (1)
It was a 1970 US Supreme Court case. 399 U.S. 78, Williams v. Florida
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0399_0078_ZS.html
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/399/78/case.html
Justices Black, Douglas, Harlan and Stewart all voted for a 12 man jury requirement
The rest voted to permit a six man jury. Since it was a 4-4 tie (Justice Blackmun had NOT participated in the decision, his nomination was NOT approved by the US Senate until after oral arguments in the case had been held. Thus the 4-4 decision on the issue of the 12 man jury.
Since the Court of Appeals that the covered Florida had ruled in favor of the six man jury, that remains the rule in Florida and the rest of 11th and 5th Federal Court of Appeal (Florida, Georgia and Alabama are the 11th, Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas are the Fifth Circuit). All six states were in the 5th Circuit court of Appeals when this decision was made in 1970. In 1981 the Fifth Circuit was divided into the present 5th and the then new 11th Circuit Courts of Appeal. Decisions of the Fifth Circuit made prior to 1981 are still binding law in the 11th Circuit thus this ruling still permits six person juries in Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas if any of those states decides to opt for a jury of less then 12.
MrSlayer
(22,143 posts)Learn something new everyday.
Bucky
(53,947 posts)The only places I know of with juries of 6 are JP courts and civil suits.
I'm a little shocked Florida would allow a 6 person jury for a homicide trial. I'll be shockeder if they can find 6 objective Floridians.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)Texas's own constitution may be different, i.e. The Texas Constitution may requires juries of 12, thus that the Federal Constitution (as interpreted by the Court of Appeals that includes Texas) permits less 12 people on a jury would never come into play in Texas (If that is the Texas Law, I do not know what the law is, in regards to juries, in Texas, I am just pointing out this is the FEDERAL RULE that covers Texas, Texas has the right to exceed those rules if it wants to).
Bucky
(53,947 posts)happyslug
(14,779 posts)I have the impression the main computer that co-ordinates DU is out of Philadelphia which would make DU made rules subject to Third Circuit decisions as to juries. The problem is the State of Pennsylvania, which contains the City and County of Philadelphia, requires 12 person's juries (but can be less if one of the juries get sick), I believe the Similar State rules are the rules in New Jersey and Delaware.
The only non-state in the Third Circuit is the Virgin Islands. The Virgin Island is a Federal Territory and thus different constitutional rules apply, all juries must be 12 in the Federal System, and that includes Courts in the Territories including the Virgin Islands. Thus the Virgin Island can NOT opt for a jury of less then 12.
On the other hand as long as Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Delaware all opts for 12 person juries, the Third Circuit Court can not rule if that meets the Federal Requirement of a trial by Jury.
The problem is DU is NOT a government entity, and thus the rules for the Courts do not apply to DU. Thus DU could set itself up as a Dictatorship of itself and that would OK with the courts. For that reason six persons juries are permitted in DU, for if DU wanted we could have a Censor doing the same function (You can call that person a "Editor" if you wanted to sound nice or "Information Specialist" if you wanted to sound high tech).
DU decided years ago it needed a Censor, but did not like that name, nor did DU like the idea of it being up to one person, thus the Job was given to forum hosts in DU2. Any group of people who do NOT want a blog to deteriorate to the lowest level needs a Censor to keep up the main thrust of the group. When DU tried NOT to have a Censor, I saw such deterioration in DU2 creep in to a point that DU made its hosts Censors and made clear the list of things NOT to do on DU (A job of any Censor). When DU3 came along and DU administrator decided to spread out the function of Censor to more people. That is how the six person jury came around and so far it has been working. 12 person may be to large a group to close down a thread that is in violation of DU rules, I like the idea of 12 but so far six is working. So lets keep it unless it is clearer that 12 censors are better then six.
monmouth3
(3,871 posts)
csziggy
(34,131 posts)The way they did in the Casey Anthony trial. Of course, with the results in that one, the prosecution does not want to go that route.
For those who don't know - In the Casey Anthony case because of the pre-trial publicity, the judge determined that finding an impartial jury from the local population was unlikely. Rather than go to the expense of moving the entire trial to another jurisdiction, one was selected from citizens of Pinellas County. Even then, in order to select jurors who were not already biased by news coverage, they ended up with jurors who paid no attention to events beyond their own lives and so were ignorant of pretty much everything.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)The Defendant has a CONSTITUTIONAL right to be tried in the district the crime occurred in. The Defendant can WAIVE that right, but NOT the prosecution.
AMENDMENT VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
csziggy
(34,131 posts)Although many pundits thought O'Mara would ask for a change of venue, it seems the judge has taken the route the professor in the blog above - having prospective jurors fill out questionnaires and go through individual voir dire to attempt to select impartial jurors. I wonder how many Seminole county citizens they will have to drag in to get their 6 jurors and 4 alternates?
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,610 posts)Pretty hard to find a place where people haven't been paying attention to this case.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,271 posts)In Britain, once a defendant is charged, the media have to restrict what they write about the evidence and people involved, so that they don't prejudice the jury.
rug
(82,333 posts)
freshwest
(53,661 posts)There is the public's right to know if there is an injustice being done and that is probably why there is so much leeway.
In this case, with falsehoods put on the news by stations to incite people for purely political gain, it's not helping.
We are lenient because Americans have a knee-jerk reaction about not trusting authority. So we allow a lot.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)I'm sure defense would like them, though.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Response to GreenStormCloud (Original post)
grok This message was self-deleted by its author.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)All people, including blacks, are individuals.
BTW - This case has nothing to do with SYG. SYG is completely irrelevant. Z is claiming that he was on his back, being beaten. It is rather difficult to retreat when you are in that position. He is claiming self-defense without the SYG. The trial will rest on whether or not the elements of self-defense were there when Z fired the shot.
grok
(550 posts)About this case.So many, im not going to look at any anymore. I haven't seen any where blacks are not 80% or more are already convinced Zimmerman is guilty. I am not judging. I am taking blacks at their word. If it was any other case but this I would agree with you.
SYG can be claimed at any time. before, during or after a trial. And this judge is NOT the final word with SYG either. It just wasn't before for tactical reasons.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)I've tried to see it from the very narrow point that TM attacked him when he out of the vehicle and his defense that he was afraid for his life, or TM was hurting him.
He put himself in danger. He was not in danger, neither was anyone else. He got out of the vehicle, he had a position of safety and power. He decided he was not too afraid for his life to get out. That's what fear of your life is, not after you go after someone.
No. Everything goes to the beginning. This is what I taught mine: Think first. Think fast. Be careful. Decide what you are doing and why. Which usually ends with backing off. Anything else, it's your fault. All your excuses later, if you hit someone who didn't endanger you, it's your fault. That's where it lays. Own up to it.
It can argued that it was not cold blooded murder. People get convicted for murder for driving a car or being an accomplice. The definition of murder applies to me, because TM didn't try to attack him in his vehicle. He never said that. He wasn't in the process of committing a crime, except in the mind of Z. No cause to confront.
This is the capital murder trial of a dead black man, not of Z. Trayvon is actually the one being accused. For some, that's not an issue, but I've seen it in the media and how it's played out on the internet. It's not gonna fly with me.
JMHO.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)You have the right to be on a public sidewalk. You have a right to follow someone if you want to. This is true even in "retreat to the wall" states (i.e. States that require you to retreat when you can to avoid a fight). This is covered by the Freedom of Movement concept. A case from the late 1800s involving a Native American who was walking on a public street, when his tribe was restricted by treaty to a reservation. He was tried for violating the treaty and leaving the reservation. The Court ruled, that as long as he was on land open to the public, he had the constitutional right to Freedom of movement on those lands even if a Indian Treaty technically restricted members of his land to their reservation. This is the concept of "Freedom of Movement" that the Supreme Court has long recognize. If some place is open to the general public, it is open to everyone. No exclusions without good cause and good cause must be clear and a reasonable alternative available (you can not refuse to permit protests, unless you forbid all protests, even protest the Government support, you can prohibit parades if such a prohibition is on all parades, not just some parades etc).
Thus Zimmerman had the legal right to get out of his vehicle and walk on the sidewalk. I agree with you he was stupid to do so, but he had the legal and constitutional right to be stupid. Thus the only remaining legal issue, did he have the right to self defense? First he has to show he was actually attacked and then he had to show that the only way to defend himself was to use deadly force.
If we accept Zimmerman's position that he had followed Trayon (which was legal through stupid) and Trayon then turned and attacked him, then that is self defense. On the other hand if all Trayon did was turn and told Zimmerman to stop following him (or asked Zimmerman why Zimmerman was following Trayon) and Zimmerman afraid do to Trayon's demand that Zimmerman stop following him shot Trayon, then that is murder.
Given what I have read, I suspect what happened is something like this. Zimmerman was following Trayon (that is admitted by everyone). Trayon became upset and yelled at Zimmerman to stop following him. I suspect this went on for more then a few seconds, with Trayon walking up to Zimmerman and putting his face almost in the face of Zimmerman and telling Zimmerman not to follow him. At that point Zimmerman fell down, probably as he tried to step backwards to put what most people consider a normal distance between him and Trayon. Trayon did NOT do anything at that time, may even reached down with his arms to help Zimmerman uo (again a natural reflex for most people). Zimmerman on the ground saw Trayon standing over him, panic and shot Trayon.
Thus the issue is that self defense or something else? Was it reasonable for Zimmerman to assume that Trayon was going to attack him as he laid on the ground? Most juries will find that Zimmerman THINKING Trayon had knocked him down was reasonable, the real issue was it reasonable for Zimmerman to think such an "attack" would continue and the only way to stop it was to shot Trayon? If Zimmerman's actions were reasonable then it is self defense, if his actions were NOT reasonable then it is Manslaughter.
Under the above "Facts" I do not see a case for Murder (I use parenthesis around the word "Facts" for in the actual trial other facts may come out so my opinion is based on what i have read, not what will be presented at trial). Given the facts known, I do not see any intent by Zimmerman to do harm to Trayon as Zimmerman exited his vehicle and walked on the side walk. On the other hand, once a confrontation took place, Zimmerman and Trayon were under a legal duty to minimize any conflict. If either did not, that person actions provides the Mens rea needed for a conviction of a crime (in this case Manslaughter).
As to Murder, the above fact do not show any intent of Zimmerman to do Trayon harm. Zimmerman's phone call to the police shows that he had concerns as to Trayon, but no criminal intent. Thus Murder is out of the equation. That leaves Manslaughter or Self Defense and each depend on what the jury finds to have occurred.
Doesn't rhyme with crayon.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)I was known for my spelling grades, repeatable grades every week, always the same, never varied. Such predictability was unheard before me and after me. Such repeatably is the best sign of accuracy.
Given that reputation for accuracy HOW DARE YOU QUESTION ANY WORD I SPELL.
(By the way, my grade week after week, year after year, was always the same an E. Every so often I would even spell a word right. I always bring it up when someone catches one of my spelling mistakes and what accuracy actually means).
I pick up how I was spelling the victim's name somewhere and just kept repeating it.
