Juror ignored judges orders in decision

[haymarket]

Last night on CNN a juror in the Martin/Zimmerman case - identified only as B37, admitted that she voted for conviction right off the bat and one reason was the testimony of a detective who judged Zimmerman to be considered as truthful.

Only one problem with that - the judge ordered the jury to disregard the testimony of the detective on this matter and not give it any merit. But that was ignored and it played a role in the acquittal of Zimmerman.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/07/02/usa-florida-shooting-idUKL2N0F80G820130702

(Reuters) - A judge on Tuesday ordered jurors in the murder trial of Florida volunteer watchman George Zimmerman to ignore part of testimony by a police detective who said he believed Zimmerman told the truth in his account of killing unarmed black teenager Trayvon Martin in self defense.

That part of lead investigator Chris Serino's testimony in a central Florida court on Monday had weighed in favor of Zimmerman, 29, who is charged with second-degree murder in the shooting death of Martin on Feb. 26 last year.

Sadly, this order from the judge was ignored by B37 who gave it weight.

 

[MaggieD]

Last night on CNN a juror in the Martin/Zimmerman case - identified only as B37, admitted that she voted for conviction right off the bat and one reason was the testimony of a detective who judged Zimmerman to be considered as truthful.

Only one problem with that - the judge ordered the jury to disregard the testimony of the detective on this matter and not give it any merit. But that was ignored and it played a role in the acquittal of Zimmerman.

Proving that you cannot unring a bell.

And, by the way, it should have been considered. Tell us why his professional opinion should have been ignored.

 

[davidtaylorjr]

Last night on CNN a juror in the Martin/Zimmerman case - identified only as B37, admitted that she voted for conviction right off the bat and one reason was the testimony of a detective who judged Zimmerman to be considered as truthful.

Only one problem with that - the judge ordered the jury to disregard the testimony of the detective on this matter and not give it any merit. But that was ignored and it played a role in the acquittal of Zimmerman.

Doesn't matter. They came to the right verdict.

 

[CRUE CAB]

Last night on CNN a juror in the Martin/Zimmerman case - identified only as B37, admitted that she voted for conviction right off the bat and one reason was the testimony of a detective who judged Zimmerman to be considered as truthful.

Only one problem with that - the judge ordered the jury to disregard the testimony of the detective on this matter and not give it any merit. But that was ignored and it played a role in the acquittal of Zimmerman.

Oh, the one that already said she is writting a book. Yea, you will hear all kinds of crap from this person for a while.

 

[buck]

Proving that you cannot unring a bell.

And, by the way, it should have been considered. Tell us why his professional opinion should have been ignored.

The cops opinion should not have been solicited or provided. Not only did the prosecution have an order in limine prior to the trial specifying this, but even if they hadn't it would be improper opinion evidence.

However, the prosecution shoudl have objected much earlier..> Actually as soon as the defense asked that question. Serino would not have answered and the jury never would have heard the answer.

As you said, once that information is out, the bell can not be unrung. This is known by lawyers and judges (and most everyone). It is impossible to tell someone to ignore something they had just heard during a trial.

This is not illegal, though, and will not result in a mistrial.

 

[buck]

Oh, the one that already said she is writting a book. Yea, you will hear all kinds of crap from this person for a while.

She's not writing a book anymore. That is the reason she did the interview instead.

 

[haymarket]

Proving that you cannot unring a bell.

And, by the way, it should have been considered. Tell us why his professional opinion should have been ignored.

Because he is not a human lie detector and could not testify to his impression as a fact that should be considered as evidence .

 

[haymarket]

Doesn't matter. They came to the right verdict.

Doesn't matter!!!!!! Your concern for proper courtroom procedure and a jury following the law is less than impressive.

 

[MaggieD]

Because he is not a human lie detector and could not testify to his impression as a fact that should be considered as evidence .

He was asked his opinion. As a professional interrogator, his opinion means something. His investigative opinion was that the guy he was interrogating was telling the truth. You don't think that's relevant. If he'd have said he thought he was lying??? It would have been a bombshell. And you'd be smackin' your lips with delight.

 

[MaggieD]

This is not illegal, though, and will not result in a mistrial.

The prosecution can't get a mistrial. It's over.

 

[Kreton]

Because he is not a human lie detector and could not testify to his impression as a fact that should be considered as evidence .

Didn't the prosecutor ask him the question?

 

[buck]

The prosecution can't get a mistrial. It's over.

It was really poor prosecution. As soon as that question was asked, the prosecutor should have stood up and objected immediately. They were not paying attention, I would guess. Which is why the request to strike testimony did not occur until the next day, as i recall.

I'm still of the opinion that the prosecution really was not interested in this case, as they knew they had nothing. Since they really were not too intersted, they made a whole lot of errors/mistakes.

 

[buck]

Didn't the prosecutor ask him the question?

No. Mark Omara (the defense attorney) asked him the question.

 

[MaggieD]

It was really poor prosecution. As soon as that question was asked, the prosecutor should have stood up and objected immediately. They were not paying attention, I would guess. Which is why the request to strike testimony did not occur until the next day, as i recall.

I'm still of the opinion that the prosecution really was not interested in this case, as they knew they had nothing. Since they really were not too intersted, they made a whole lot of errors/mistakes.

Right. Had they objected when the question was asked, it would never have been answered. But even THEY thought that expert opinion was admissible. Their Hail Mary the next day happened to be caught. That happens sometimes.

I think they were very invested in that case. It was a career-maker. I just don't think they had anything to work with.

 

[davidtaylorjr]

Doesn't matter!!!!!! Your concern for proper courtroom procedure and a jury following the law is less than impressive.

Proper procedure? Do you really want to go there? If proper procedure had been followed the trial would have never even happened.

 

[trfjr]

Last night on CNN a juror in the Martin/Zimmerman case - identified only as B37, admitted that she voted for conviction right off the bat and one reason was the testimony of a detective who judged Zimmerman to be considered as truthful.

Only one problem with that - the judge ordered the jury to disregard the testimony of the detective on this matter and not give it any merit. But that was ignored and it played a role in the acquittal of Zimmerman.

Zimmerman trial judge tells jury to ignore detective's description | Reuters



Sadly, this order from the judge was ignored by B37 who gave it weight.

she said she believed the detective to be truthful show where she said that she took into account what the judge told her to ignore post a link to where she said as much. stop it with your lies its begriming to make you out to be a disparate fool

 

[WCH]

Oh, the one that already said she is writting a book. Yea, you will hear all kinds of crap from this person for a while.

Actually, FOX reported that she didn't want the book deal and wanted t get on with her life.

Understandably so considering the grief she might have to withstand.

 

[CycloneWanderer]

The defense was free to motion for a mistrial if they so desired. Some research has been done that shows jurors can't unhear something or purposefully disregard something they hear that is pertinant to their understanding of the case. Telling them to disregard something may actually increase that information's impact on their decision.

 

[buck]

Right. Had they objected when the question was asked, it would never have been answered. But even THEY thought that expert opinion was admissible. Their Hail Mary the next day happened to be caught. That happens sometimes.

Not to be argumentive, but no. They knew it was improper. They just dropped the ball.

I think they were very invested in that case. It was a career-maker. I just don't think they had anything to work with.

you could be right. But they made a lot of mistakes that makes me think differently and wonder if it was just a show trial to appease the mobs.

 

[CycloneWanderer]

Not to be argumentive, but no. They knew it was improper. They just dropped the ball.



you could be right. But they made a lot of mistakes that makes me think differently and wonder if it was just a show trial to appease the mobs.

I thought something similar, but considering all the borderline unethical things it took to get this trial to happen and the sanctions the prosecutors could face as a result I have a hard time believing it is all for show.

 

[Dapper Andy]

Last night on CNN a juror in the Martin/Zimmerman case - identified only as B37, admitted that she voted for conviction right off the bat and one reason was the testimony of a detective who judged Zimmerman to be considered as truthful.

Only one problem with that - the judge ordered the jury to disregard the testimony of the detective on this matter and not give it any merit. But that was ignored and it played a role in the acquittal of Zimmerman.

Zimmerman trial judge tells jury to ignore detective's description | Reuters



Sadly, this order from the judge was ignored by B37 who gave it weight.

That just isn't true.

The judge instructed the jury to disregard a single aspect of his testimony; not his testimony altogether.

Did you even read your own link?

 

[Carleen]

Last night on CNN a juror in the Martin/Zimmerman case - identified only as B37, admitted that she voted for conviction right off the bat and one reason was the testimony of a detective who judged Zimmerman to be considered as truthful.

Only one problem with that - the judge ordered the jury to disregard the testimony of the detective on this matter and not give it any merit. But that was ignored and it played a role in the acquittal of Zimmerman.

Zimmerman trial judge tells jury to ignore detective's description | Reuters



Sadly, this order from the judge was ignored by B37 who gave it weight.

The aquittal of George Zimmerman was there was enough reasonable doubt to not convict him. Plain and simple. Tiem to move on

 

[Erod]

This just proves that, despite the judge's best efforts to get Zimmerman convicted, she was unsuccessful.

 

[Zyphlin]

Last night on CNN a juror in the Martin/Zimmerman case - identified only as B37, admitted that she voted for conviction right off the bat and one reason was the testimony of a detective who judged Zimmerman to be considered as truthful.

Did you meant to type aquittal? Because voting for conviction based off that

1) seems weird

2) Flys in the face of what you're trying to argue

 

[Grim17]

Last night on CNN a juror in the Martin/Zimmerman case - identified only as B37, admitted that she voted for conviction right off the bat and one reason was the testimony of a detective who judged Zimmerman to be considered as truthful.

Only one problem with that - the judge ordered the jury to disregard the testimony of the detective on this matter and not give it any merit. But that was ignored and it played a role in the acquittal of Zimmerman.

Zimmerman trial judge tells jury to ignore detective's description | Reuters



Sadly, this order from the judge was ignored by B37 who gave it weight.

Maybe you need to go back and listen to his testimony again... Serino's favorable testimony for Zimmerman did not hinge on that one answer to that one question.

One example was the question that preceded it, about Z's reaction to the statement he made suggesting there might be a video. He asked Serino what Z's reaction indicated... Go back and listen to that... If that doesn't convince you, then I'll be glad to post several more examples.