Why Juror B-29 is a Model Juror -- Mark O'Mara

[Josie]

[h=1]Why Zimmerman Juror B-29 Is A Model Juror[/h] A number of people have been asking for our response to Juror B-29’s remarks during ABC’s Robin Roberts' interview about the Zimmerman verdict. The big headline from the story is “George Zimmerman got away with murder,” but that is an inaccurate distillation of Juror B-29's statements. Rather, the substance of the juror’s other comments are more complicated and nuanced. Here’s a key exchange that got my attention:


Juror B-29 says, “For myself, he’s guilty, because the evidence shows he’s guilty.”


Robin Roberts asks for a clarification, “He’s guilty of?”


Juror B-29 responds, “Killing Trayvon Martin. But as the law was read to me, if you have no proof that he killed him intentionally, you can’t say he’s guilty.”
We acknowledge, and always have, that George killed Trayvon Martin. Over the last 15 months, we’ve heard from a lot of people who feel that anytime a life is lost at someone’s hands, the person responsible is guilty of SOMETHING. Indeed, it is natural to feel this way. In a self-defense case, however, that fact that the defendant committed a homicide is stipulated -- it is undisputed. However, self-defense is one of the instances under the law when homicide is justifiable. People may disagree with self-defense laws, but a juror’s job is not to decide what a law should be, her job is to apply the facts presented at trial to the laws they are instructed about. Based on her statement, it seems Juror B-29 looked at the law, and whether or not she agreed with the law, she did her job and made her decision on a legal basis. This is the essence of what we seek in a juror: the ability to use one’s common sense, apply the law to the facts, agree not to be swayed by sympathy or emotion, no matter how loudly it’s argued by the prosecutors, and decide a lawful and fair verdict.


When Robin Roberts asks Juror B-29 if she stands by her decision, she says, “I stand by my decision because of the law. If I stand by my decision because of my heart, he would have been guilty.” While that decision of guilt would have been an emotional one, it would not have been a legal one. We applaud her ability to maintain the distinction.
We don’t expect jurors to be heartless people. Every murder case starts with someone who has had their life taken, someone who leaves behind grieving loved-ones. Every loss of life is a tragedy, and we don’t ask jurors to be immune to that. But we do ask jurors not to reach their verdicts based on what their hearts tell them; for the verdict, a juror must set aside emotions and follow the law. Based on her comments, Juror B-29 accepted a tremendous burden, set her feelings aside, and cast a verdict based the evidence presented in court and on the law she was provided.


Any juror that follows Juror B-29’s process will deliver a fair and just verdict.

Why Zimmerman Juror B-29 Is A Model Juror

 

[nota bene]

And this is why I have faith in the jury system, Josie. Most jurors take their responsibilities so seriously.

Although I've never served on a grand jury, I've been a grand jury commissioner (grand title but no big deal). I have known several people who've served on one. Not a single one, when instructed by the judge not to talk, has ever breathed a word. Never. Not even while drinking (ha, and being pumped for info by close friends).

Talking about jury service at the water cooler or on a message board is one thing, but it's a very different experience once you're in the courtroom. Gravitas and all that.

 

[davidtaylorjr]

[h=1]Why Zimmerman Juror B-29 Is A Model Juror[/h] A number of people have been asking for our response to Juror B-29’s remarks during ABC’s Robin Roberts' interview about the Zimmerman verdict. The big headline from the story is “George Zimmerman got away with murder,” but that is an inaccurate distillation of Juror B-29's statements. Rather, the substance of the juror’s other comments are more complicated and nuanced. Here’s a key exchange that got my attention:


Juror B-29 says, “For myself, he’s guilty, because the evidence shows he’s guilty.”


Robin Roberts asks for a clarification, “He’s guilty of?”


Juror B-29 responds, “Killing Trayvon Martin. But as the law was read to me, if you have no proof that he killed him intentionally, you can’t say he’s guilty.”
We acknowledge, and always have, that George killed Trayvon Martin. Over the last 15 months, we’ve heard from a lot of people who feel that anytime a life is lost at someone’s hands, the person responsible is guilty of SOMETHING. Indeed, it is natural to feel this way. In a self-defense case, however, that fact that the defendant committed a homicide is stipulated -- it is undisputed. However, self-defense is one of the instances under the law when homicide is justifiable. People may disagree with self-defense laws, but a juror’s job is not to decide what a law should be, her job is to apply the facts presented at trial to the laws they are instructed about. Based on her statement, it seems Juror B-29 looked at the law, and whether or not she agreed with the law, she did her job and made her decision on a legal basis. This is the essence of what we seek in a juror: the ability to use one’s common sense, apply the law to the facts, agree not to be swayed by sympathy or emotion, no matter how loudly it’s argued by the prosecutors, and decide a lawful and fair verdict.


When Robin Roberts asks Juror B-29 if she stands by her decision, she says, “I stand by my decision because of the law. If I stand by my decision because of my heart, he would have been guilty.” While that decision of guilt would have been an emotional one, it would not have been a legal one. We applaud her ability to maintain the distinction.
We don’t expect jurors to be heartless people. Every murder case starts with someone who has had their life taken, someone who leaves behind grieving loved-ones. Every loss of life is a tragedy, and we don’t ask jurors to be immune to that. But we do ask jurors not to reach their verdicts based on what their hearts tell them; for the verdict, a juror must set aside emotions and follow the law. Based on her comments, Juror B-29 accepted a tremendous burden, set her feelings aside, and cast a verdict based the evidence presented in court and on the law she was provided.


Any juror that follows Juror B-29’s process will deliver a fair and just verdict.

Why Zimmerman Juror B-29 Is A Model Juror

Exactly. She put aside her personal bias, and ruled according to the law.

 

[clownboy]

I agree, she did right by her instructions and the law. Where she goes wonky is calling it murder. It's like abortion foes calling a legal abortion murder - it's inaccurate and incendiary.

 

[CRUE CAB]

She is a gold digger at this point. I hope he sues her for slander.

 

[rocket88]

She is a gold digger at this point. I hope he sues her for slander.

Free Speech - if we like it.

 

[WCH]

When she mentioned she was the only non-white on the jury and 'felt' like she was letting down so many people, her racism or whatever you want to call it, was showing.

You think the White jurors felt like if they had found him guilty it would of let down all White people? I think not.

 

[CRUE CAB]

Free Speech - if we like it.

Not really. If it can be tied back to say him not getting a job or otherwise harming him. Defamation and slander laws apply.

 

[rocket88]

Not really. If it can be tied back to say him not getting a job or otherwise harming him. Defamation and slander laws apply.

Please, Isn't he getting a gun endorsement deal now? He can make a living signing autographs at NRA conventions if he wants to.

 

[CRUE CAB]

Please, Isn't he getting a gun endorsement deal now? He can make a living signing autographs at NRA conventions if he wants to.

Being dumb on purpose?
Unless he is ready to change his name, he will never get another job in his life.

 

[clownboy]

Please, Isn't he getting a gun endorsement deal now? He can make a living signing autographs at NRA conventions if he wants to.

Give it a rest, we've had enough lies and misinformation surrounding this case already. Show a legitimate source for that info.

 

[rocket88]

You don't think he'd be able to sign autographs at an NRA convention? He's practically a hero to them:

U.S. gun group raises $12,000 for George Zimmerman

It's awfully nice of them to do, and it just shows what they think of him. Personal appearances. Just show up at a couple of gun shows, wave to the crowd and he'd probably get paid $5,000 a pop easily.

 

[Excon]

You don't think he'd be able to sign autographs at an NRA convention? He's practically a hero to them:

U.S. gun group raises $12,000 for George Zimmerman

It's awfully nice of them to do, and it just shows what they think of him. Personal appearances. Just show up at a couple of gun shows, wave to the crowd and he'd probably get paid $5,000 a pop easily.

The foundation's donation for Zimmerman is meant to be spent on guns, ammunition, protective gear or a security system, said Ken Hanson, the group's legal chairman.

"The Department of Justice refused to return him his gun, and he's in need of protection," Hanson said. "The money is intended to be used for anything he needs to defend himself or his family. He has complete discretion on how to use the money."​

That is good news!

 

[rocket88]

The foundation's donation for Zimmerman is meant to be spent on guns, ammunition, protective gear or a security system, said Ken Hanson, the group's legal chairman.

"The Department of Justice refused to return him his gun, and he's in need of protection," Hanson said. "The money is intended to be used for anything he needs to defend himself or his family. He has complete discretion on how to use the money."​

That is good news!

That's good for him. Proves that he has some popularity, at least with gun people. He could cash in on that if he needs to.

 

[clownboy]

You don't think he'd be able to sign autographs at an NRA convention? He's practically a hero to them:

U.S. gun group raises $12,000 for George Zimmerman

It's awfully nice of them to do, and it just shows what they think of him. Personal appearances. Just show up at a couple of gun shows, wave to the crowd and he'd probably get paid $5,000 a pop easily.

Yes, it was nice of those groups to help raise money for a defense he never should have needed. But your other little supposition, that he had a job waiting at the NRA, was just so much fiction. From what we've all seen the guy really isn't into capitalizing on his "fame", unlike Trayvon's parents.

 

[joko104]

Being dumb on purpose?
Unless he is ready to change his name, he will never get another job in his life.

No, what he needs is an agent.

 

[rocket88]

Yes, it was nice of those groups to help raise money for a defense he never should have needed. But your other little supposition, that he had a job waiting at the NRA, was just so much fiction. From what we've all seen the guy really isn't into capitalizing on his "fame", unlike Trayvon's parents.

He doesn't have a job waiting at the NRA. He can, however, make personal appearances to make money. Apparently, some people view him as a hero.

If he doesn't capitalize on that, that's not my fault. I'm sorry if my post doesn't fall nicely into your little "Anti-Z" box. If he were to capitalize on it, I wouldn't blame him at all. He should do so, IMO.

 

[Excon]

Apparently, some people view him as a hero.

A status figure, sure.
He did have defend himself and did it with a gun
It was legal to do, and self defense is a reason why many folk purchase firearms.
He then he had to go through the tribulation of a trial which he should not have had to.

He did the right thing and then was vilified for it.
Why shouldn't folks view him as a status symbol or lionize him?

But hero?
I haven't seen anyone make him out to be a hero for it.
Nor have I seen anyone idolize him for it.
He did what he had to do.

 

[clownboy]

A status figure, sure.
He did have defend himself and did it with a gun
It was legal to do, and self defense is a reason why many folk purchase firearms.
He then he had to go through the tribulation of a trial which he should not have had to.

He did the right thing and then was vilified for it.
Why shouldn't folks view him as a status symbol or lionize him?

But hero?
I haven't seen anyone make him out to be a hero for it.
Nor have I seen anyone idolize him for it.
He did what he had to do.

That's precisely it. And the folks on the TM bandwagon have so idealized/radicalized/racialized the issue that they see anyone who supports the verdict as seeing GZ as a hero. That's as wrong as the Justice For Trayvon! crapola. GZ did what he had to do in self defense. That doesn't make him a hero, just a survivor whose actions were legal.

 

[Wehrwolfen]

[h=1]Why Zimmerman Juror B-29 Is A Model Juror[/h] A number of people have been asking for our response to Juror B-29’s remarks during ABC’s Robin Roberts' interview about the Zimmerman verdict. The big headline from the story is “George Zimmerman got away with murder,” but that is an inaccurate distillation of Juror B-29's statements. Rather, the substance of the juror’s other comments are more complicated and nuanced. Here’s a key exchange that got my attention:


Juror B-29 says, “For myself, he’s guilty, because the evidence shows he’s guilty.”


Robin Roberts asks for a clarification, “He’s guilty of?”


Juror B-29 responds, “Killing Trayvon Martin. But as the law was read to me, if you have no proof that he killed him intentionally, you can’t say he’s guilty.”
We acknowledge, and always have, that George killed Trayvon Martin. Over the last 15 months, we’ve heard from a lot of people who feel that anytime a life is lost at someone’s hands, the person responsible is guilty of SOMETHING. Indeed, it is natural to feel this way. In a self-defense case, however, that fact that the defendant committed a homicide is stipulated -- it is undisputed. However, self-defense is one of the instances under the law when homicide is justifiable. People may disagree with self-defense laws, but a juror’s job is not to decide what a law should be, her job is to apply the facts presented at trial to the laws they are instructed about. Based on her statement, it seems Juror B-29 looked at the law, and whether or not she agreed with the law, she did her job and made her decision on a legal basis. This is the essence of what we seek in a juror: the ability to use one’s common sense, apply the law to the facts, agree not to be swayed by sympathy or emotion, no matter how loudly it’s argued by the prosecutors, and decide a lawful and fair verdict.


When Robin Roberts asks Juror B-29 if she stands by her decision, she says, “I stand by my decision because of the law. If I stand by my decision because of my heart, he would have been guilty.” While that decision of guilt would have been an emotional one, it would not have been a legal one. We applaud her ability to maintain the distinction.
We don’t expect jurors to be heartless people. Every murder case starts with someone who has had their life taken, someone who leaves behind grieving loved-ones. Every loss of life is a tragedy, and we don’t ask jurors to be immune to that. But we do ask jurors not to reach their verdicts based on what their hearts tell them; for the verdict, a juror must set aside emotions and follow the law. Based on her comments, Juror B-29 accepted a tremendous burden, set her feelings aside, and cast a verdict based the evidence presented in court and on the law she was provided.


Any juror that follows Juror B-29’s process will deliver a fair and just verdict.

Why Zimmerman Juror B-29 Is A Model Juror

Thus proving that our laws based upon Blackstone are correct and just.

 

[rocket88]

That's precisely it. And the folks on the TM bandwagon have so idealized/radicalized/racialized the issue that they see anyone who supports the verdict as seeing GZ as a hero. That's as wrong as the Justice For Trayvon! crapola. GZ did what he had to do in self defense. That doesn't make him a hero, just a survivor whose actions were legal.

George Zimmerman, Hero, Is Innocent | Beyond Highbrow - Robert Lindsay

Some people think so.

Why then did that group raise $12,000 for him to buy guns?

You're doing the same thing lumping everybody into one boat. I think the verdict was legally correct, much the same as this juror does. But you can't deal with that, it's too easy to lump it in with Al Sharpton to say that Zimmerman could capitalize on his celebrity.