[POLL] : Will George Zimmerman Get a Fair Trial?

[Google]

Again, the lies and false narrative of this case put forth by the media has tainted the publics understanding of the facts.

 

[kaz]

OMG, the only way they could have determined he lied was by SPYING on his online activities. I can't believe no one has commented on this vast overstepping by the authorities!!!

We should jump to a wild conclusion suggested by you and do what Democrats would do. You should seriously read your drivel before you click "Submit," you'd sound a lot less stupid.



My bad, I wish I'd read that before I clicked submit, you would definitely not sound less stupid...

 

[TemplarKormac]

Zimmerman was not optionless. If he was seriously concerned about a tainted jury he could have chosen to have a judge decide instead of a jury.

And then speculation would arise that he was trying to weasel his way out of a real trial. He would deprive the media of their whipping boy.

I'm just saying though, this is a circus already, and it looks like there could be a mistrial.

Again, I think declaring a mistrial, before the trial has really begun is a bit premature.

Yes, but that was not for the pre-trial hearings, the prediction was mainly after the trial has started, Amy.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Zimmerman was not optionless. If he was seriously concerned about a tainted jury he could have chosen to have a judge decide instead of a jury.

^ False choice.

There is no reason he should have to give up the obvious benefit of a trial by a jury of his peers (whose verdict must be unanimous) in favor of a judge-trial just because he might think that the jury pool has been tainted.

A change of venue is one way around that problem.

I'm not suggesting its an either or, simply pointing out Zimmerman is not forced to accept a tainted jury.

If he's right and the pool is tainted, and if his request for a venue change is denied, then he either goes non jury or he accepts a tainted pool. And if he fears that the judge will not be fair, then he's much better off with a jury of 12 (OR, in his case, 6).

That leaves him with no options at all.

 

[blackhawk]

Yeah I think he will.

 

[AmyNation]

^ False choice.

There is no reason he should have to give up the obvious benefit of a trial by a jury of his peers (whose verdict must be unanimous) in favor of a judge-trial just because he might think that the jury pool has been tainted.

A change of venue is one way around that problem.

I'm not suggesting its an either or, simply pointing out Zimmerman is not forced to accept a tainted jury.

If he's right and the pool is tainted, and if his request for a venue change is denied, then he either goes non jury or he accepts a tainted pool. And if he fears that the judge will not be fair, then he's much better off with a jury of 12 (OR, in his case, 6).

That leaves him with no options at all.

1) Jury trial in current location

If not acceptable

2) change of venue

If rejected

3)wave jury have judge decide.


He only has "no options" when you assume everyone is agaisnt him and everything that can go wrong for him will.

 

[The Rabbi]

As long as he has some white people or Hispanics or Asians he'll at least get a hung jury and be acquitted. Then the Feds will charge him with violating Trayvon's civil rights. Actually they might do that anyway.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Alright. Let's shift this debate a little.

If he is ruled not guilty, how do you think America will react?

If he is ruled guilty, likewise, how do you believe America will respond?

 

[TemplarKormac]

I'm not suggesting its an either or, simply pointing out Zimmerman is not forced to accept a tainted jury.

If he's right and the pool is tainted, and if his request for a venue change is denied, then he either goes non jury or he accepts a tainted pool. And if he fears that the judge will not be fair, then he's much better off with a jury of 12 (OR, in his case, 6).

That leaves him with no options at all.

1) Jury trial in current location

If not acceptable

2) change of venue

If rejected

3)wave jury have judge decide.


He only has "no options" when you assume everyone is agaisnt him and everything that can go wrong for him will.

Given that the State AG was pressured into indict him? You bet your hind cheeks it will.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

I'm not suggesting its an either or, simply pointing out Zimmerman is not forced to accept a tainted jury.

If he's right and the pool is tainted, and if his request for a venue change is denied, then he either goes non jury or he accepts a tainted pool. And if he fears that the judge will not be fair, then he's much better off with a jury of 12 (OR, in his case, 6).

That leaves him with no options at all.

1) Jury trial in current location

If not acceptable

2) change of venue

If rejected

3)wave jury have judge decide.


He only has "no options" when you assume everyone is agaisnt him and everything that can go wrong for him will.

Wrong.


1. what if the jury pool is tainted? Accepting a trial by jury in that tainted community is not an acceptable option. Not really much of an option at all.

2. Of no value if the motion is made but the Motion is denied.

3. Denies him the right to a jury trial if he feels he "must" go non jury, and he may not feel the judge lacks bias.

He only HAS an option if the system is working as it is intended to.

IF, for example, the flood of prejudicial and often erroneous pre-trial publicity (fed by the prosecutor) has tainted the jury pool, then his right to a fair trial has been undermined.

IF he then seeks a change of venue, but the judge denies it, he is kind of screwed completely on the jury trial option.

IF he also sees the judge as biased against the defense, he'd have to be a fucking idiot to see waiving a jury trial as a rational option.

 

[sitarro]

Yes he will.

Things change when you actually sit on a jury.

People generally take it very seriously.

sure....like the O.J. trial.........

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J8TqhBIEbWA]Chris Rock-But I understand - YouTube[/ame]

 

[DiamondDave]

This will be a circus...

 

[AmyNation]

Again, your example suggests that everything will go wrong.


"If the system works as its intended to"


Why are you assuming that the system will totally and utterly fail in this case?

 

[Fang]

He already hasn't received a fair trial. The media already made sure of that when they doctored the 911 calls and kept displaying Trayvon Martin as a 12 year old. Not the mention the thousands of people marching on TM's behalf that couldn't tell you one fact about the case. The public sees all of this. Will they find any jurors who haven't seen this mess or who will not fear for their lives if they issue a not guilty verdict? Doubtful.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Yes he will.

Things change when you actually sit on a jury.

People generally take it very seriously.

sure....like the O.J. trial.........

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J8TqhBIEbWA]Chris Rock-But I understand - YouTube[/ame]

Did you watch the trial of OJ, I did, the defense destroyed the prosecution. And the nightly news LIED every night about what happened in the Court room.

 

[DiamondDave]

Odds on appearances by Sharpton or other race baiting opportunists??

 

[Wake]

It's doubtful. The media and the racebaiters have already convicted him.

 

[Wake]

Yes, he will.

One of the potential jurors was already caught lying to the court. That juror said he had no, iirc, "motivations or oreconceived notions." The problem is that they checked his FB page, and found that he had commented about getting justice for Trayvon Martin.

If one juror has already been caught lying, could there be those that won't be?

 

[AmyNation]

He was caught before he was picked. Both Zimmerman's lawyer and the state are screening the jurors closely.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Again, your example suggests that everything will go wrong.


"If the system works as its intended to"


Why are you assuming that the system will totally and utterly fail in this case?

I don't get why you are arguing over this.

I was discussing his views.

IF he sees the tainting of the jury pool. I credit that point of view, by the way. He got smeared long before trial. I do see it as highly problematical.

We don't know (yet) if his lawyers and he will seek a change of venue. But if they see a need to ask, then sure: it does kind of assume the worst. That's the basis for any such motion. Nothing wrong with it, especially given the incredible notoriety surrounding this case together with ALL of the disinformation and opinion-shaping that the media engaged in.

Coincidentally, IF the defense does make the motion, and if it gets denied, that determination could be viewed as the product of bias.

But either way, if it gets denied, he's stuck THERE. A trial by a jury in which the entire pool is possibly tainted? Or waive the jury and let a (possibly) biased judge (singular) "decide." I know that I would never view that as any kind of "option."