Steve_McGarrett
Gold Member
- Jul 11, 2013
- 19,272
- 4,371
- 280
- Banned
- #1
George Zimmerman's patriotic defense attorney Mark O'Mara explains the importance of why juror B-29 was a model juror. I feel Mark O'Mara gives in detail what a lot of other people across America can't seem to grasp when it comes to finding a person guilty or not guilty. He makes great points in his blog post today. Please read below.
Why Zimmerman Juror B-29 Is A Model Juror
Why Zimmerman Juror B-29 Is A Model Juror
July 26
A number of people have been asking for our response to Juror B-29s remarks during ABCs 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 jurors other comments are more complicated and nuanced. Heres a key exchange that got my attention:
Juror B-29 says, For myself, hes guilty, because the evidence shows hes guilty.
Robin Roberts asks for a clarification, Hes 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 cant say hes guilty.
We acknowledge, and always have, that George killed Trayvon Martin. Over the last 15 months, weve heard from a lot of people who feel that anytime a life is lost at someones 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 jurors 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 ones common sense, apply the law to the facts, agree not to be swayed by sympathy or emotion, no matter how loudly its 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, If I stand by my decision because of my heart, he would have been guilty. I stand by my decision because of the law. 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 dont 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 dont 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.
Why Zimmerman Juror B-29 Is A Model Juror
Why Zimmerman Juror B-29 Is A Model Juror
July 26
A number of people have been asking for our response to Juror B-29s remarks during ABCs 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 jurors other comments are more complicated and nuanced. Heres a key exchange that got my attention:
Juror B-29 says, For myself, hes guilty, because the evidence shows hes guilty.
Robin Roberts asks for a clarification, Hes 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 cant say hes guilty.
We acknowledge, and always have, that George killed Trayvon Martin. Over the last 15 months, weve heard from a lot of people who feel that anytime a life is lost at someones 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 jurors 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 ones common sense, apply the law to the facts, agree not to be swayed by sympathy or emotion, no matter how loudly its 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, If I stand by my decision because of my heart, he would have been guilty. I stand by my decision because of the law. 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 dont 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 dont 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.
