jump to last post 1-7 of 7 discussions (32 posts)

State of Florida v George Zimmerman...Jury Selection

  1. chipsball profile image60
    chipsballposted 4 years ago

    The most important phase of this criminal trial will be the selection of six (6) jurors and (4) alternate jurors who will determine the outcome. Selecting jurors who can set aside their feelings towards either the State of Florida or the Defense, listen to the testimony that only comes from the witness stand and cast a true verdict based upon that evidence, will be difficult..but is attainable.

    Some potential jurors from the community are not suitable for this particular trial, some bring bias and prejudice that they hide in order to sit on the panel to carry out their personal agenda. The lawyers on both sides must eliminate those who have that personal agenda, eliminate those who cannot follow the law and those who have already made up their mind in regards to Zimmerman's guilt or innocence.

    Florida criminal procedure relies on a six (6) person jury panel which is different from most jurisdictions versus a twelve (12)  person jury panel. This may be a plus or minus depending upon the pool of potential jurors and the time allow by the Judge to question each of them. With stakes so high in this case the Judge will certainly allow more leeway in the questions asked by both sides and the time she allows them to have doing the voir dire.

    Once the selection process is completed then the criminal trial will begin with the presentation of the States second degree murder case against the Defendant. Those who are interested in justice must then rely on the jurors to reach a fair and just verdict.  Will shall see!

    1. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      It will indeed be interesting. While the pool of potential jurors includes every adult in the the county that isn't saying much.  It's hard to believe that there is a soul around that hasn't heard of this case and likely already made up their mind as to guilt.  Florida just might be better off to move the trial to another location.

      1. chipsball profile image60
        chipsballposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Too late to move the trial...the Judge must take control very early to make sure it doesn't become a circus and the trial proceeds in the same manner that criminal cases take place throughout the country.

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Yes, I know.  And it's already a circus; it has been since the night of the killing.

  2. chipsball profile image60
    chipsballposted 4 years ago

    Once the jury is impaneled then the pressure will mount on them as the evidence is presented and they go back to deliberate trying to reach a  just verdict. Most people have never set on a jury and have never experienced the pressure of the intense back and forth with individuals they have never met, when it comes down to deciding the fate of a Defendant. It is not a easy task nor is it a pleasurable experience. It will take a serious and a strong  juror in this particular case to reach a verdict they must live with for the rest of their lives.

    1. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Unless either defense or prosecutor have far more evidence than I've seen it's going to be one tough call.  And when they add in the "Stand Your Ground" law, well, I'd purely hate to be on that jury.

      1. chipsball profile image60
        chipsballposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        The Stand Your Ground defense was abandoned by the Zimmerman defense team. It is no longer in play. Zimmerman is now presenting  self defense to his defense of the shooting. The jury will decide his fate based on that defense.

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Not according to what I read.  But who really knows what games the attorneys will play - for sure they aren't going to make it public knowledge before it happens.  I just posted a link in another thread that the defense will claim Z was on the way back to his car when Martin accosted him.

          We'll find out at trial time, I guess.

          1. chipsball profile image60
            chipsballposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            A hearing was scheduled by the Court to receive evidence by the Defense team of Zimmerman to present evidence in support of a claim of Stand Your Ground. The defense withdrew the argument and the hearing was never held. That is in the record.

  3. chipsball profile image60
    chipsballposted 4 years ago

    Questions: Assuming you are in the jury pool in this case.

    Have you formed an opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the Defendant George Zimmerman?

    Did you form that opinion based upon something you have read or heard?

    Is it possible for you to set aside that opinion and sit in fair judgement based upon the evidence presented?

    Are you being truthful and honest in your answers?

    I am very curious as to the responses from Hub Page contributors.

    1. profile image0
      Deepes Mindposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I couldn't be a juror in this case..

    2. profile image0
      Brenda Durhamposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I haven't formed an opinion yet.

      But I think many people have.  Especially Obama lovers.   Obama had to jut his nose into this case too, remember;  he said something about if he had a son, Trayvon would probably look like him.    What a stupid racist remark to make, one that's totally irrelevant to the case yet could tip the balance scale just because of the power of the "President's" tongue.     If O would put some duct tape on his own mouth or something,  justice might eventually be served in a lot of cases in this Country.

      1. chipsball profile image60
        chipsballposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Brenda

        I only asked you to respond to the survey. The fourth question ask if you were being truthful and honest...you appear incapable of that!

        Your comments regarding President Obama should be reserved for another thread and topic. To describe his comments as racist only illustrates your ignorance of race relations in today's society and your hatred of Prez O.

    3. profile image0
      Motown2Chitownposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      A very wishy-washy one, but yes.



      Yes, I did.



      In part, but not completely.





      There you have it.  The long and short of it is that I do not feel equipped to judge this case.  There are factors surrounding it that make it very difficult for me to be as objective and impartial as a juror would need to be.

  4. profile image57
    Lie Detectorposted 4 years ago

    Zimmerman's innocent!

    1. profile image0
      Deepes Mindposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Zimmerman is not guilty of the first degree murder that they tried to charge him with, but he did violate neighborhood watch rules and his actions led to Martin's death

      1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
        MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        That's where I am with it...

        Basically, someone died that didn't need to.  Zimmerman owns a piece of that. Not sure how much of that piece, but enough that there should be some kind of justice.

        1. chipsball profile image60
          chipsballposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Please respond to the  4 question is the survey. I would like to know your responses.

          Thanks

    2. chipsball profile image60
      chipsballposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Lie Detector...why don't you respond to the survey by answering the 4 questions?

  5. chipsball profile image60
    chipsballposted 4 years ago

    Dear Hub Pages contributors to this post.

    Thank you for your responses...so far many have chosen to participate I thank those.

    Regarding the question posed...there were about six (6) other questions I wanted to include in my survey however I didn't want to place too many before you or waste your time. I could also have asked #2 in a different manner however it would have required more inquiry and more elaboration, something again I didn't want to do. I apologize to you all.

    Please continue to participate if you haven't already I am very interested in your responses.

    Thanks...Chipsball

  6. wilderness profile image95
    wildernessposted 4 years ago

    OK, in answer to our quiz:

    No.  Only a fool would consciously form an opinion of guilt or innocence based solely on media hype and internet outrage.  While the justice games played in our courts are pathetic, the idea that the vitriolic spewing of hate on the internet or spun reports of media is superior to a courtroom is far worse.

    N/A

    N/A, although it might be difficult to accept what a jury hears as true vs. what has been heard (and unconsciously absorbed as true) in the past year.  Example; if racism is discussed in the trial, and the jurist has heard the media doctored tape "proving" Zimmerman's racist attitudes but not the true tape nor the profuse apologies for broadcasting the edited version, one might question courtroom evidence Zimmerman is not racist.

    Without a very good reason to lie, why would anyone do so?  Yes

    1. chipsball profile image60
      chipsballposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      The survey was designed to gauge a jury pool members pretrial opinion of the case. The first phase of jury selection. Once the jury panel of 40 has been established then further questions will come from the State of Florida and Zimmerman's defense team as to their positions and/or points of view on various topics that are relative to the case. I am trying to take it one step at a time and follow the trial.

      While we many times disagree Wilderness I appreciate your input and welcome your responses to my survey. Let's remain civil. I will do my part.

      1. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        If I offend, I certainly apologize; that was not the intent.  I understand what you're asking with the poll, and certainly agree that they are valid questions for a potential juror. 

        You asked: I answered, along with a little of the reasoning.  Reasoning I absolutely stand behind: anyone judging Zimmerman and willing to stick him in jail based solely on the junk we hear from the media or hate mongers on the 'net is a fool.  OR willing to turn him loose based on the same thing.

        You (and I don't necessarily mean you personally, just anyone at all) want to judge the news organization that produced the doctored 911 tape, fine - you have the evidence to to so.  You want to judge the people that claim Zimmerman was racist simply because it was a black black boy that died, fine - you have the evidence to do so.  You just don't have the evidence to judge Zimmerman himself.

        1. profile image0
          Deepes Mindposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I personally don't think they should be trying to charge him for capital murder, but there is one fact in the whole thing that is enough to charge him with something: He ignored the advice of the 911 operator by getting out of his car and following Trayvon Martin. Sorry, but had he not done that, Trayvon would still be alive. He violated Neighborhood watch rules as well

          1. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Unfortunately, he is under no obligation to take the "advice" of anyone, let alone a civilian voice on the telephone.  No legal requirement, no responsibility to do so.

            Neighborhood watch rules, I'm not sure apply either.  Hearsay has it that he was "off duty" and again has no responsibility to follow such rules.  And even if he was "ON duty" I'm not sure he is required by law to follow the rules, either.  Neighborhood Watch may remove him from the program for not following rules, but I'm not sure the cops can do anything about it.

            As far as I can see, Zimmerman had every right in the world to exit his car and walk down the street.  He even has the right to speak to anyone, or no one, as he chooses. 

            So you think he is guilty of "something", and thus should be punished, - you just don't know what.  You don't know if he did anything illegal, but you've convicted him of that unnamed "something" nevertheless.  Sorry, Deepes, I can't go with you on this one.

            1. profile image0
              Deepes Mindposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I didn't expect you to. Trayvon Martin had rights too. He had the right to not respond to Zimmerman, He had the right to walk down the street in his neighborhood. He had the right to try to evade someone who he thought might have been after him. Martin has the right as well to defend himself if at any point he felt threatened or in fear for his own safety under the same law that Zimmerman was using..

              And all because Zimmerman decided to geto ut of his car and follow..

              We will have to agree to disagree on this one

              1. wilderness profile image95
                wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Or maybe it was all because Martin, in his fear or because he hates white people, broke Zimmerman's nose instead of talking to him and started a fight that ended up with his own death. 

                We don't know, which is my entire point.  We don't know who is guilty of what, and you making Zimmerman guilty because he walked a street that he had every right to just isn't right.  I mean, I've even heard that Zimmerman was returning to his car when Martin accosted him!  We don't know what went down that night (and few if any of the posters here know and understand the Florida laws that are applicable) so I will absolutely withhold judgement until we do.  And even then, not having sat in that courtroom I will only accept what the jury decides, not what I think happened.

                I will NOT condemn and judge a man without a trial - you will of course do what you will do.  Should you judge Zimmerman without knowing what happened then, yes, we will have to agree to disagree.

                1. psycheskinner profile image80
                  psycheskinnerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  We know a whole lot more than that.  Including that Zimmerman deliberately left his house, armed himself and got in a vehicle to pursue someone.  And that he had a record of harassing pedestrians he didn't like the look of despite being asked to stop that conduct by the police on that and other occasions (as per phone recordings already released).

                  While Martin was on his way from a store where he made a purchase to a family residence where he was living.

                  I know which looks more like a person "just walking down the street". And that colors my suspicion as to who attacked whom with a firearm. And who might need to stand the ground they just happened to be standing on at the time when they were attacked.

                  Yes, the trial is final word, but I am not just going to turn of my brain in the meantime.

                  1. wilderness profile image95
                    wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    If you know that Zimmerman "deliberately left his house, armed himself and got in a vehicle to pursue someone" then you must have a very effective crystal ball.  Because I don't see Zimmerman admitting that and for sure no one else in the world knows exactly why he left his house.  Such comments are the norm in this case, though, as people exaggerate and spin what little they do know into something they don't.

                    All (occupied) houses are a "family residence" even if there is only one in the family.  You do a disservice to imply that it was Martin's nuclear family that lived there. Such comments are the norm in this case, though, as people exaggerate and spin what little they do know into something they don't.  (Again, you don't know where Martin was going - he has never said.)

                    Color your suspicion all you want - an entire rainbow of suspicions does not give you the right to declare guilt.  On the plus side is the admission that it is only suspicion and not knowledge.  Too many take their suspicions and turn it into a declaration of guilt - an extremely nasty habit and one very much at odds with "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law".

                    As far as I know, Zimmerman had no record of "harassing pedestrians"; he had a record of phoning in reports of strangers on private property.  Indeed, his comment to the 911 operator that he had had too many get away because the cops don't show up in time would seem to indicate that he didn't confront them as a matter of course.  He hung back and that gave the "suspicious person" time to get away.

                    Me, neither.  Of course, turning off your brain is a wee bit different than waiting for all the facts to determine guilt or innocence.

          2. chipsball profile image60
            chipsballposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            psychesskinner please respond to my survey...I am interested in your responds.

  7. chipsball profile image60
    chipsballposted 4 years ago

    Wilderness...without getting off track with my survey, but it does relate:

    A potential juror from the jury pool was questioned yesterday about his opinion regarding the guilt or innocence of the Defendant (Question # 1) in my survey. In the questions sheet the potential individuals were asked to fill out he indicated he had no contact or relationship with the Defendant or State of Florida in reference to the case. When placed under oath and questioned however he acknowledged that he had contributed monies to the Zimmerman defense team and failed to answer the questions truthful. (Question #4) in my survey. He then stated he could be impartial and keep an open mind.

    This person will obviously not make it on the 6 person jury panel, however it indicates the threat that people with personal agenda will hide information from the both the defense and state to further that agenda.

    What do you think?

    1. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I think your potential juror is pretty stupid.  Stupid enough to lie and then stupid enough to incriminate himself as a liar.

      But yes, the questions all make sense and can be useful in picking a jury.  Most will answer truthfully and those that don't will often be discovered as liars before being chosen as a juror.

 
working