Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Zimmerman Trial: Jury Charge and Verdict Watch LIVE

Zimmerman Trial: Jury Charge and Verdict Watch LIVE

All the closing arguments are now completed, and in a few moments the jury will be instructed, and then sent into deliberations. We will be covering the jury charge live here on streaming video, along with our usual twitter feed. Once the jury goes into deliberations, we will be prepared to cover any breaking news, and of course both the Professor and I will be active covering the trial conclusion on Twitter.

Live Stream Video

WITH COMMENTARY FROM CHANNEL 9 IN SANFORD
[For live-stream video without commentary, see NBC live feed at bottom of this post.]

Twitter Feed:

(My tweets can be identified as coming from @lawselfdefense, or @lawselfdefense2 if I’m in Twitmo–follow both!.)



Live Stream Video Alternative

LIVE-STREAM WITHOUT COMMENTARY FROM NBC

Friday, July 12 Commentary

This past weekend I posted up an analytical piece of Mark O’Mara’s request for a judgment of acquittal. O’Mara’s motion was well-reasoned and supported by Florida’s case law. It was, of course, doomed to peremptory denial by Judge Nelson. In that piece I’ve linked almost all of the case citations made by O’Mara to full-length copies of the decisions, so you can see the sources for yourselves, if you like (most of the decisions are gratifyingly brief). You can see that here:

Why Zimmerman’s Motion for Acquittal Should Have Been Granted

Last Thursday, July 4, I had posted up a review of the trial to date, with some prognostication of how things may role out in the coming days. To take a look at that, click here:

Zimmerman Trial Review– How We Got Here, And Where We’re Going

For all of our prior coverage on day-to-day events in court, as covered here at Legal Insurrection, click here:

ARCHIVE: Zimmerman Trial LIVE coverage all day, every day

For all of our prior coverage on issues specific to the Law of Self Defense as covered at my own blog, click here:

Law of Self Defense Blog: Zimmerman Trial

(NOTE: If you do wander over to the LOSD blog, be sure to come back to Legal Insurrection to comment, as nearly all my time is spent here for the duration of the trial.)


ALERT: A price increase of ~$10 is imminent for “The Law of Self Defense, 2nd Edition” on lawofselfdefense.com due to Amazon having raised their price to $45 yesterday (full explanation here). If you’ve already ordered the book, or don’t care to have one, this obviously isn’t of consequence.

But if you’ve been sitting on the fence, you might consider jumping off today.  I will maintain my price of $33 on  lawofselfdefense.com, until a verdict is delivered in this case. Once the verdict is read — and I hope very much to see that happen today with a verdict of not guilty — the price of the book on my site goes from $33 to $45, to match Amazon .

Andrew F. Branca is an MA lawyer and author of the seminal book “The Law of Self Defense,” now available in its just released 2nd Edition, which shows you how to successfully fight the 20-to-life legal battle everyone faces after defending themselves. Take advantage of the 20% “Zimmerman trial” discount & free shipping (ends when the jury returns a verdict). NRA & IDPA members can also use checkout coupon LOSD2-NRA for an additional 10% off. To do so simply visit the Law of Self Defense blog. I have also instituted a similar coupon for Legal Insurrection followers LOSD2-LI(Coupons works ONLY at www.lawofselfdefense.com.) “The Law of Self Defense, 2nd Edition” is also available at Amazon.com.

Many thanks to Professor Jacobson for the invitation to guest-blog on the Zimmerman trial here on Legal Insurrection!

You can follow Andrew on Twitter on @LawSelfDefense (or @LawSelfDefense2 if I’m in Twitmo, follow both!) on Facebook, and at his blog, The Law of Self Defense.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments


Here we go.

Legal Question – is Judge Nelson’s repeated usage of the word “killing” in accordance with standard jury instruction?

What’s the over/under on deliberations?

    CENTFLAMIKE in reply to wildlifer. | July 12, 2013 at 2:17 pm

    Let’s go with 3 hours.

    I’ll take under.

    Fabi in reply to wildlifer. | July 12, 2013 at 2:25 pm

    Verdict today, but I’m biased.

    Dear looters: I need a new laptop. An HP would be nice, or maybe a Sony. Widescreen is not necessary, but a plus. $35 cash or a few really sticky buds of KB is my best offer…

      inquisitivemind in reply to Fabi. | July 12, 2013 at 2:32 pm

      Do you care to post your request in Spanish as well -well with more Cuban/south American dialect?

      Never no which side you’ll be requesting said goods from

      BubbaLeroy in reply to Fabi. | July 12, 2013 at 2:50 pm

      You are not allowed to call them looters. They are undocumented shoppers.

        Fabi in reply to BubbaLeroy. | July 12, 2013 at 3:02 pm

        I stand corrected, sirrrrrrrr! lol

        ‘Looters’ has such a negative connotation. I’m culturally insensitive like that sometimes. Back to re-education camp. Again!!

        graytonb in reply to BubbaLeroy. | July 12, 2013 at 3:15 pm

        Now that’s cold… you and I both know the correct term is ‘urban foragers’.

      Uncle Samuel in reply to Fabi. | July 12, 2013 at 2:57 pm

      BEST LAUGH of the day!

      My poor keyboard and screen have been RUINED by all of the Coke that you peoples’ comments have made me spew….

      ….is it too late to put in my order for a new laptop? A 17″ one with all the bells and whistles, please!

      (Oh, and be sure and get me one that has Windows 7 on it, m’kay?) 😛

      I don’t like crowds. Could somebody help me hack one of the online electronics retailers so I can still get me my Free Stuff™?

    gravedancer in reply to wildlifer. | July 12, 2013 at 4:33 pm

    With as much of a train wreck as the states case was, if I were the Jury foreman, as soon as the doors were closed, the first thing I would do is ask “ok so is there anyone here who does NOT have reasonable doubt that GZ is guilty?” If all the jurors were truly unbiased, it might be the shortest deliberation in history.

Fabi est muy loco using cellphone to write comments because Fabi broke laptop this dia in a fit of loco, loco, loco. What’s the Spanish for ‘Yo estoy muy ENOJADO!’?

We should make a drinking game at the number of times she messed up saying George Zimmerman’s name.

Do the alternates get dismissed now, or do they also go in to deliberations?

Her last few sentences seemed to rule out jury nullification. Not that it would apply in this trial but I don’t she has the right to do that. You absolutely must judge the law as well as whether the law was broken.

No one with a functioning conscience could do otherwise. It doesn’t mean you do it lightly but nullification is one of the few checks left on government expansion.

    kentuckyliz in reply to Voluble. | July 12, 2013 at 2:40 pm

    If you’re ever called to jury duty, and you want out, just state that you believe in jury nullification and you’ll be hustled right out of there.

    However, after this crazy show trial, I will never ever seek to duck jury duty. (Got off once by sending in my alien registration card.)

    stown in reply to Voluble. | July 12, 2013 at 2:42 pm

    Quite common for Judges to include these types of instructions. They don’t like us thinking for ourselves all that much. See fija.org.

Carol Herman | July 12, 2013 at 2:34 pm

I remember watching OJ’s trial gavel to gavel. It’s not something you forget! Here, not only watched the live coverage, but was able to view segments by the way you presented links. So thank you for Andrew. I think I will never forget this trial because of the excellent presentation you’ve done here.

I really hope these jurors acquit. And, don’t “split.” While I know outside it’s raining cats and dogs. (Which means I doubt there will be a lot of protestors outside.)

Also, usually when you get groups of people gathered in “street fairs,” you always get peddlers selling tee-shirts. I hope, ahead, there will be lots of tee-shirts old with some famous slogans on them. Like Dr. Bao’s “I remember nothing.” Do you think that answer worked when he took his qualifications board?

What a cast of characters we’ve seen. At the end, when Mr. O’Mara was doing his close. And, he brought out all the “wintess cards” … I began hoping someone will do a deck of cards … So we can all play “what this witness said” guessing games.

Good luck to GZ and his family. I hope at the end of the day O’Mara and West can celebrate a victory. Excellent lawyering. Even us novices could see what real legal training looks like.

Someone should have made an app to signal a verdict. I’ll be at work this evening. 🙁

kentuckyliz | July 12, 2013 at 2:36 pm

It’s all over but the deliberation, verdict, crying, and looting.

It should take the jurors longer to assign a jury foreman that it takes to agree on a verdict.

    kentuckyliz in reply to styro1. | July 12, 2013 at 2:41 pm

    If the jury perceives that they may experience retribution, won’t it be hard to find someone to serve as foreman? You have to sign your name to the questions and verdict.

      All jurors’ names are public record in Florida, except under extremely unusual circumstances. Like, in the Casey Anthony trial, the judge ordered them sealed for 3 months. So this judge might seal them for some period of time, 3 or 6 months maybe, but eventually everyone’s name will be out there.

    rokiloki in reply to styro1. | July 12, 2013 at 2:42 pm

    should

iconotastic | July 12, 2013 at 2:41 pm

“Instruction: If jury does not follow law, “your verdict will be a miscarriage of justice.” Must base verdict on evidence.”

So the judge essentially said “vote not guilty” since the prosecution didn’t have any evidence, only hyperbole?

Carol Herman | July 12, 2013 at 2:44 pm

Jury Nullification is LEGAL! It’s been legal in the United States since 1835. I twas used when jurors were told to convict people of aiding slaves to run away. But it has a “longer than that” history. It goes back to 1650. To London, England. When William Penn was accused (of something.) The jurors came back and refused to convict. Or even allow William Penn to be fined. So the angry judge turned around and convicted each juror. And, said each juror also has to pay the same fine. (Old English Law.) William Penn left for the “colonies.” And, today, we call PENNSYLVANIA in honor of PENN’s name.

IF half-nelson said jurors can’t find the judge’s instructions valid, you bet your booty they can do JURY NULLIFICATION. On top of which half-nelson is FORBIDDEN to interfere with jurors who are deliberating the FACTS in the case.

Only JURORS are tasked with finding FACTS. Sure, if you’re summoned to serve on a jury, and you hint you’re in favor of JURY NULLIFICATION you’ll be excused.

Most Amreicans who receive summonses in the mail HOPE they can convince a judge to excuse them. It’s counter-intuitive. But say you’re an “expert” in the field the defendent is being charged with? BINGO. GOOD BYE.

My son was recently called on the San Francisco case where a man shot his wife, after taking out a $30-million policy. (Convicted.) Only because I followed the case on Google. But just by sitting through voir dire he learned (since the case involved “suicide” … if any juror was familiar with this through their own experiences. And, he counted at least 40 people who knew someone who killed themselves, or tried to.)

Me? If I ever got a jury summons again? I’m sure I could think of something, “no disrespect” … but I don’t believe in “retarded” testimony. Is this a bar? Or is this a saloon?

6 women.

Folks, I think a LOT of these women will view George Zimmerman as a caring man.

– Volunteer for Community Watch.
– Inquiring of Female Crime Victim.
– Offered his home to victim as a place of refuge from fear.

The prosecution NEVER made George Zimmerman look dangerous to them. NEVER, at any point did they even come close to doing that. All of their cursing, yelling, arm-waving, pleading, etc.. never made him look dangerous to them at all.

If they have indeed not been influenced by the hullabaloo in the media, they will acquit rather quickly.

If they get the “somebody has to pay” mentality, they go for the Manslaughter verdict and go home.

    PackerBronco in reply to Bryan24. | July 12, 2013 at 2:50 pm

    Or they may decide that Zimmerman has already been punished by being forced to endure this fiasco.

    kittycat in reply to Bryan24. | July 12, 2013 at 3:52 pm

    I read that a couple of the jurors are churchgoers, then a wife on it that her and her husband have conceal carry. So at last that’s good. One is from Chicago, I think, and moved to FL not too long ago. Don’t know which one, but she has been arrested before. It didn’t say why, and I think that they didn’t know either. Must not have been a big deal, I guess.

T-minus 1:30! 4:14 Eastern – verdict city!

Burn, baby, burn! Hip-hop inferno!

I think I have time to take a shower before they come back.

Anyone know what the defense was asking about at the end regarding “ammunition” going back to jury, which Judge Nelson said no it isn’t?

    Henry Hawkins in reply to DollzWize. | July 12, 2013 at 2:51 pm

    It means the jury can look at the weapon involved, but they won’t be able to load it – a safety precaution.

    Harperman in reply to DollzWize. | July 12, 2013 at 2:54 pm

    They are sending the gun back as evidence and don’t want to include live ammo. Good choice since all the jurors may not know how to handle firearms. Then again they may be afraid the jurors will use it on the persecutors. After what the persecutors have put the jurors through that may be classified as justifiable self defense.

    MAPTX in reply to DollzWize. | July 12, 2013 at 2:55 pm

    She is worried someone might accidentally shot someone else while they are wrestling on the floor trying to see if they can get the gun out ?

    healthguyfsu in reply to DollzWize. | July 12, 2013 at 2:55 pm

    Gun is going back but unloaded with no ammunition.

    DollzWize in reply to DollzWize. | July 12, 2013 at 2:58 pm

    Thank you for explaining this 🙂

    MAPTX in reply to DollzWize. | July 12, 2013 at 3:22 pm

    I just saw where MOM has filed 6 different motions for sanctions against the state for discovery violations and pretty much call out BDLR as a scum bag. What are the penalties from those motions?

The biggest question is did any jurors get on jury that were like nutjob Jerry Counelis

Important follow: @PIOFLCourts18. Public information officer for the court, will tweet announcement when verdict reached.

What we have here is the classic contest of our time: the law, common sense and the moral compass of the American individual vs. the corruptive emotional power of the progressive social Narrative. How will the jury go? What is our future for this country?

henh….Sheriff Enslinger “Two families changed forever, “our hearts & prayers go out to both.” Make that one caring, intact family. ugh.

    Let’s all remember to be as gracious as Mr. O’Mara was in his closing arguments.

    No matter what we may think about Mr. Martin’s parents, they did lose a son – regardless of how they may have conducted themselves before or after that does not change the fact that they will always mourn that loss.

    We dishonor Mr. Zimmerman’s goodness if we lose sight of that; I am sure that he wishes things would have turned out differently.

      Judyt2013 in reply to teresainfortworth. | July 12, 2013 at 5:04 pm

      I tried to have sympathy for TM’s parents, but when Sybrina Fulton has tried to make a profit off her dead son I lost it. It reminded me of the Atlanta young men murders from the early 80s where one of the mother’s used the victims’ fund to have lyposuction.

Law Enforcement has been in contact with pastors in Fla to make sure of no violence. Al Sharpton is a Reverend and has started numerous riots.

Henry Hawkins | July 12, 2013 at 3:05 pm

I’ve only served jury duty once (sent a guy up for 15 yrs for child molestation, YES), but a rough itinery might be:

10 minutes of ‘whoooof, glad that’s over’

10 minutes for selection of jury forewoman

15 minutes of the forewoman determining with the rest how they want to approach their job

1 hr making sure they know the applicable laws and instructions

10 minutes taking an initial ‘where are we at vote-wise on this’

1 hr deliberation going one by one

1 hr dinner break

10 minute re-vote upon return

1 hr double-checking they’ve properly applied law and instructions

VERDICT

That’s about 5 hours’ worth, making the verdict announcement sometime tomorrow (or Monday if not working tomorrow).

*Wild card: During that one trial I was on the jury for, we had a 21 yr old moron who was obviously voting against everyone else just to vote against everyone else, supported by an explanation that was total moronic hogwash, an oppositional personality type. We wasted an hour and a half on that idiot, in a case where we, the jury, actually saw and heard the defendant turn during a break towards his molestation victim’s mother sitting in the front row and say, “I’m sorry. I didn’t want it to happen. I’m so sorry,” and who had volunteered – on the stand! – the previously kept-from-the-jury info that this was his third trial for child molestation. But our moron felt he was innocent (these weren’t even needed – the state did a great job).

So, who knows what can happen once the jury goes behind closed doors?

    graytonb in reply to Henry Hawkins. | July 12, 2013 at 3:27 pm

    I’m betting they work straight through. Nelson will let ’em, too.

    mwsomerset in reply to Henry Hawkins. | July 12, 2013 at 4:08 pm

    I would think that after selecting a forewoman…they will take an initial vote….if an unanimous “not guilty” they will be out of there. Why hang around and discuss why you voted the way you did. If it takes much longer than a couple of hours, I fear that it will be a hung jury.

Where are these people when a 14 yr old black kid kills a 9 yr old black girl sitting on her porch? Black on black crime…..crickets. “White” hispanic on black “crime” WE DEMAND JUSTICE” Makes me sick to watch these people go on TV and act so concerned.

    kittycat in reply to styro1. | July 12, 2013 at 3:11 pm

    You’re right, styro1. Take Chicagoland, it’s a hell hole. Black kids shot, black shoots and beats up white folks and on and on. It’s worse than a third-world country.

    wyntre in reply to styro1. | July 12, 2013 at 4:32 pm

    I’m wondering why Hispanics have not banded together to protest the racist charges against their ethnic group.

Carol Herman | July 12, 2013 at 3:06 pm

The alternates were 4 men. One man was excused. So I’m guessing now that the case is inside the jury room, the 3 alternates were able to go home? Are they forbidden to watch television? Or “use” the Internet?

Offhand, I don’t remember the man who did the “visual” for the Defense; but I read somewhere he did “The Matrix?” (What’s that?)

Can video and/or games come out of this trial?

Oh, my gosh. Can there be a documents dump? What about the “deleted” messages on Trayvon’s phone which should have had a “chain of custody” roadmap?

Will Americans look away from an obvious racial animus angle created by Al Sharpon, Jesse Jackson, and Crump? Tracy Martin finds out his son is dead the day after he’s killed (and didn’t come home). And, from the City Manager Boneparte, to the connections to the race baiters … we’re gonna see this all disappear?

It didn’t for Nifong. (Duke)

It didn’t for Tawana Brawley. One of the accused cops just made sure her current employer garnishees her wages. Because he won in Civil Court.

Tawana Brawley was 15 years old when she makes her false claims through Al Sharpon. Today? Oh, she’s about 45. Gives reality to the truth taking a long time to get out of bed.

As to obama, I think his presidency is in shambles.

    kittycat in reply to Carol Herman. | July 12, 2013 at 3:12 pm

    Oh, was that Connor? Maybe Richard?

    Mercyneal in reply to Carol Herman. | July 12, 2013 at 3:20 pm

    In the Tawana Brawley case, Sharpton defamed Dutchess County prosecutor Steve Pagones by falsely accusing him of raping Brawley. It was Pagones who won the defamation lawsuit and got Brawley’s wages garnished.

    I believe Alton Maddox ponied up the dough for Sharpton.

Midwest Rhino | July 12, 2013 at 3:11 pm

Put me down for $5 on 3:38 today … not guilty/completely innocent.

George then has supper with either a publicist or another lawyer to start the civil suits.

7pm .. Obama calls for calm, apologizes for stirring up the racial hate for his political purposes, humbly phones George.

ha … that will never happen. More likely Holder will get his location and forward it to his Black Panther friends.

Uncle Samuel | July 12, 2013 at 3:16 pm

Sybrina Fulton and Benjamin Crump got up and left right in the middle of Mark O’Mara’s closing statement to the jury.

For effect? To distract the jury?

    Twanger in reply to Uncle Samuel. | July 12, 2013 at 3:20 pm

    Too embarrassed to be associated with the prosecution any longer?

    I believe Ms. Fulton got up right after Mr. O’Mara showed the picture of the bullet which killed her son.

    A palpable hush fell over the entire courtroom when that picture flashed up, and the TV cameras were VERY careful not to show the picture; I’m guessing the picture was of more than just the bullet.

    I’m willing to give her the benefit of the doubt and think that it was just too, too much for her to bear.

    fogflyer in reply to Uncle Samuel. | July 12, 2013 at 3:36 pm

    Yep, and I was thinking at the time that if I was on the jury, it was piss me off. Low class.

    They were insulted that O’Mara smeared Trayvon by showing an actual recent photo of him.

    mwsomerset in reply to Uncle Samuel. | July 12, 2013 at 4:12 pm

    They were overcome with guilt when they realized what crappy parents they turned out to be…Ma kicked him out of the house and Pa let him run wild when he got to Sanford.

Is there any truth to the rumor that the State did the rebuttal while riding unicycles and juggling?

    healthguyfsu in reply to tcbaz. | July 12, 2013 at 3:21 pm

    Could be?…possibly?…we just don’t know!…and that’s the problem and that’s why we should convict the prosecutors of 2nd degree murder.

    Elliott in reply to tcbaz. | July 12, 2013 at 3:39 pm

    There were some plates spinning also as I recall. Then a little misogyny and yelling thrown in for good measure.

Great O’Mara interview on CNN right now!

Any peep from Alan Dershowitz lately?

eaglesdontflock | July 12, 2013 at 3:22 pm

Nancy Grace posited if a white boy had been shot there’d be riots. While you are waiting, let me know if you saw any riots about this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murders_of_Channon_Christian_and_Christopher_Newsom

Connivin Caniff | July 12, 2013 at 3:26 pm

I hope all the commentators realize that if the text messages of Trayvon had been admissible, the prosecution would have not had anything at all for argument. It would be darn hard to make those “scared helpless child” comments.

    DollzWize in reply to Connivin Caniff. | July 12, 2013 at 3:31 pm

    Yes, the jury not being privy to crucial evidence like what all was on TMs phone has me very concerned as to what verdict they will actually come to.

    Bryan24 in reply to Connivin Caniff. | July 12, 2013 at 3:33 pm

    Had the phone information come in, the prosecution would have had 3/4 of their theories totally undermined. I think the jury would have really had a 30 minute deliberation.

    Those text message and picture prove the mentality of TM and show that in ALL likelihood he started the fight to impress his friends.

      wyntre in reply to Bryan24. | July 12, 2013 at 4:39 pm

      Wonder if any of the jurors are going to be royally PO’d after they’re released from the case and they find out everything that was NOT presented them during trial.

I think we get riots either way. If GZ is deemed guilty we’ll get “celebratory” riots.

retiredprosecutor | July 12, 2013 at 3:35 pm

If the jury is permitted to deliberate over the weekend, don’t expect a verdict anytime before Monday.

The jurors know that they eyes of the nation are on them. They know that if they return a quick verdict that it will be viewed as an indication that they didn’t devote sufficient time and energy to reviewing the testimony and exhibits.

In short, a quickly rendered verdict will have the effect of undermining the validity of their decision, in the eyes of many.

This is not to say that the jurors will not “reach” a quick verdict, perhaps in a matter of hours. Only that they will not let the court know that they have reached a verdict until Monday, at the earliest.

I have tried many cases in which the jury is able to reach a verdict very quickly, but they don’t let the court know for some time, in some instances a few days.

I know that this is a real phenomenon because I have spoken to many, many jurors after trial who have told me that they reached their verdict in less than one hour, but wanted to sleep on it and/or continue to meticulously review all the evidence so that they could say that they properly performed their duty to be fair to both sides.

In the GZ case, I don’t think the jurors will reach a quick verdict. Nor do I think that they will advise the court that have a verdict anytime before Monday, assuming they deliberate over the weekend.

    Ragspierre in reply to retiredprosecutor. | July 12, 2013 at 3:39 pm

    I think that is sound.

    Thank you for your comment – a voice of reason in this shrill cacophony of moronic posters saying that they’ll reach a ‘innocent’ verdict in a matter of a couple hours. Ridiculous posts.

    Have any of the jurors you reference ever had to sit through a trial as ridiculous as this one?

    Completely agree, I’ve had a group jurors tell me after trial that they all decided on a verdict after the first vote (5 minutes) but waited in the jury room for two hours because they thought that would look better. That was only a two day NOT televised trial. I think they will deliberate for at LEAST several hours if not days particularly if they are going to acquit.

ReallyVeryObnoxious | July 12, 2013 at 3:37 pm

Thinking about the politics, if the verdict is guilty, does any one have any odds on Zimmerman surviving imprisonment? Seems to me that whether that is a sure thing depends on what the purpose of the political motivation was. Might not be any, if the Obama administration has any tendency for random senseless acts.

If innocent, could a political faction petty enough and capable enough to organize this be petty enough and capable enough to pay the jurors back?

Is it possible to bring in someone with ties to a big city machine from out of state, and seat them on a jury for the purpose of influencing said jury? This last is really a question about the process for going from a voter roll to an initial jury pool. I expect that judges and lawyers have looked at such processes, but I wonder what a statistician could say about how random it is.

    retiredprosecutor in reply to ReallyVeryObnoxious. | July 12, 2013 at 4:01 pm

    He will survive prison, if survive means breathing and eating. But it will be miserable. He will be in isolation 24/7 for his own safety. He will have access to his appellate attorneys and, on occasion, his relatives.

    If he’s guilty, he may be killed in prison. One of the brothers will make him his pillsbuty dough ‘boy’

So they need a unanimous verdict?

The protests have already begun outside the Sanford Courthouse.

This reminds me of the Tom Wolfe novel Bonfire of the Vanities and the shyster Harlem racebaiter Reverend Bacon.

Hail Mary:
“Ladies of the Jury, we have heard the Defendant claim that Trayvon Martin was running or skipping in his desperate quest to get home. But can we say with absolutely certainty, that the child was not, in fact, doing the moon-walk during those critical four minutes, thereby enabling the Defendant to overtake and accost him? No, we can not. I submit that that is for you to decide.”

iconotastic | July 12, 2013 at 3:57 pm

I don’t think the Martin text messages matter. If the jury will convict with this lack of evidence then the Martin text messages wouldn’t change their minds. If the jury is committed to voting based on emotion and not on evidence then how would more evidence change their minds.

I see two possible benefits of this exclusion. First, if the jury votes not guilty without having drug Martin’s character through the mud (regardless of whether or not his character was already in the mud) then the national “quality” of the decision is increased. It becomes more difficult to claim that Martin was demonized in order to exonerate Zimmerman. Some people will believe that but the more that don’t the better.

The second possible benefit comes from the comments from Andrew, Rags, and others on this blog. Excluding that evidence was A Bad Thing (not a lawyer, not even on home videos) and can help any appeal for Zimmerman.

A distant third benefit is that the nation does know that Martin was certainly a very troubled young man who was very prone to violence, soon to be a school drop out, and likely well on his way to a life of crime and prison. While the jury cannot know that, the information is out there and will serve to moderate anger at any acquittal. This was not the story of an evil white racist hunting down an innocent boy no matter what the race hustlers want us to believe.

    styro1 in reply to iconotastic. | July 12, 2013 at 4:21 pm

    I think they would have mattered. The prosecution portrayed TM as an innocent child, wouldn’t have been able to do that w/ messages of fighting, dope smoking and gun buying/selling.

    Ragspierre in reply to iconotastic. | July 12, 2013 at 4:24 pm

    It is always easy to gauge how damaging to a case will be by the energy used by your opposition to keep it out of consideration.

    Here, according to Andrew, among others, the State violated the rules of discovery.

    That should be VERY suggestive to you.

      iconotastic in reply to Ragspierre. | July 12, 2013 at 4:52 pm

      Probably just searching for a silver lining.

      How serious can the sanctions be for hiding the evidence? How serious would they be where you come from?

    Uncle Samuel in reply to iconotastic. | July 12, 2013 at 5:30 pm

    Mark O’Mara has filed several motions already for appeal if the jury does not acquit.

    IF there is another trial, O’Mara will take off the velvet gloves and Trayvon’s life, interests and criminal activity will be opened for scrutiny.

    It’s past time for Sybrina Fulton, Tracy Martin and Benjamin Crump to come clean about Trayvon.

    The Trayvon Foundation should go to help the Ben Carson Foundation and others like it, to give black kids other goals than those that took Trayvon’s life.

    They have a choice and I hope they make the right choice.

    Obama and Holder, Sharpton and Jackson could do much good for black people, but instead, they use them for their own gratification and gain.

    Disgusting. As America’s first part-black President, Obama could have done much good. Instead, he has chosen lawlessness, cronyism, corruption, abortion, sexual perversion, unemployment, used power of his office to punish opponents…to be a bully.

    Time for a bunch of people in office to repent and start doing the right thing.

inquisitivemind | July 12, 2013 at 4:11 pm

Any chance we see a 4:19 verdict?
Got a minute?

Crump and Parks are saying this is about race! Equal justice! Dishonest assholes! I can’t effing believe this crap!

STFU Crump! Mush-mouthed loser! This turd needs to be in jail…

not_surprised | July 12, 2013 at 4:26 pm

anyone have a link to Omara’s close? I missed it 🙁

Now Martin Bashir is whining along like a little bitch! Grrrrr.

Parks just said ‘This is how you argue strategical. Strategical, indeed! Moron.

healthguyfsu | July 12, 2013 at 4:29 pm

See a dearth of Zimmerman supporters…I wouldn’t go near that “scene”.

Crump: ‘A teenage keeeuhd, wahkin hoohme.’

Illiterate puke.

healthguyfsu | July 12, 2013 at 4:32 pm

I see there was an affirmative action hire for the new police chief.

Is it mere coincidence that the new chief is black?

So tired of all of this racial stuff. We were doing fine before BO came into office, and he divided the country even more than it is now. Sure, there’s always been idiots that hate someone for their skin color, but it’s worse now.

Jury question recalling all to courtroom

*BREAKING*

The jury has submitted a question to the judge.

MSNBC; hey, can we check “guilty” on everything, or have to pick just one?

Everyone else: Is it too early to come back with “not guilty”?

inquisitivemind | July 12, 2013 at 4:38 pm

Jury has a question!

Can we give a verdict now?

A question from the jury!! Wow! This quickly?

‘Can we bitch-slap BdlR?’

Hard to know what this question may or may not signify at this point….

inquisitivemind | July 12, 2013 at 4:42 pm

An evidence list?
They want the Skittles!!!

At least they’re looking t the evidence.

What did it say? MSNBC was on a commercial break…

“There’s no box to check for ‘Completely Innocent’, and how do we tell the Bailiffs to wash the prosecution’s mouths out with soap?”

I agree they won’t reach a verdict too quickly. Casey Anthony jurors reached verdict in 11 hours or so. The trial I recently served on we voted nearly as soon as we got in the jury room. It was certainly not a high profile case but the person was going to serve a few years of time. We all agreed guilty but I for one was afraid to let them know we had reached a verdict so quickly. It was however a Thursday afternoon before a long holiday weekend (Good Friday) and I was over ruled by the group. By the time we elected a foreman, took and vote, filled out the paper and called the bailiff it was 12 minutes. The Public defender blasted us to the limited media that was there.

In a high profile racially charged case (at least in the media’s eyes) there is no way I would agree to come back with a verdict for a few days.

    graytonb in reply to bizbach. | July 12, 2013 at 4:48 pm

    I don’t know, that could just allow more time for emotions to simmer. May be better to just rip the band-aid off now.
    Oh nice… 1st group of demonstrators just pulled in from St Pete…..

    iconotastic in reply to bizbach. | July 12, 2013 at 5:28 pm

    no pool or room service? Maybe some pay for view of recent movies?

If they’re looking at evidence and exhibits the prosecution and Judge Jeffreys are not gonna be happy…

They want an evidence list.

George just walked out of court-Run George run!

Listening to FOX 35 coverage here in Orlando…reminds us all that NAACP national (?) meeting here in town this weekend. The reporter was mentioning that the President (?) of the NAACP has mentioned pursuing Federal Civil Rights charges?!?!?!

No double jeopardy since Federal vs. State?

I misheard something, right?

    Fabi in reply to gatorray. | July 12, 2013 at 4:48 pm

    If he’s found not guilty in Florida, they’ll jack him up on bs Federal charges.

    MSNBC whining that racial profiling wasn’t allowed in the charges. Fools and knaves!

    inquisitivemind in reply to gatorray. | July 12, 2013 at 4:48 pm

    The FBI has already done an investigation into civil rights violations and found none

    caambers in reply to gatorray. | July 12, 2013 at 4:48 pm

    He could face Federal charges…but for what? If anyone has a case for civil rights offenses it’s George. His entire life and that of his family has been turned upside down because of lies. He and his family have been deprived of their liberty and pursuit of happiness for 14 months. Enough already!

    styro1 in reply to gatorray. | July 12, 2013 at 5:00 pm

    No they had trial for Rodney King police officers, found not guilty. Then they were charged for civil rights violations and found guilty and did/doing time. No such thing as double jeopardy in fed land. Don’t havta folla no consditushun.

All the MSNBC analysts at the moment are kneegrows. Wonder why?

    wyntre in reply to Fabi. | July 12, 2013 at 4:55 pm

    They’re trying to prove the recent story about declining diversity in newsrooms is false.

Not good for George.

Probably a hold out or two that needs to be convinced by other evidence.

The judge left the bench to get her Twinkie?

Will you post MOM’s closing? I’d love to watch it again.

My guess, it’s the juror who shed a tear during the State rebuttal (all emotion, no evidence in her judgement?)

    Jack Long in reply to avwh. | July 12, 2013 at 4:59 pm

    the juror who shed a tear during the State rebuttal

    I read a tweet or a blog post that said that juror was just rubbing her eyes. It was the juror who would not make eye contact with BDLR yesterday. IOW, someone’s making a mountain out of a molehill.

    I couldn’t find that link again because I’ve read so many sites.

    Perhaps someone else can corroborate.

Evidence list should be a blank piece of paper.

What about Trayvon Martin’s right to stand his ground?
This from the Cornhole News Network:
http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/11/opinion/francis-zimmerman-trial

If posted prior, uhh, gee, toooo bad..

Have to engage in wild speculation to figure out what that means–I’m guessing it suggests that the jury, or at least some jurors, want to be methodical about what was introduced rather than trying to pull evidence to support preconceived stories. That’s a good sign for the defense, even if it means the deliberations will take longer. I doubt there’s a hold-out yet–I’m betting they haven’t even gotten to an initial vote and want to make sure they don’t leave anything out.

    Browndog in reply to Edgehopper. | July 12, 2013 at 4:54 pm

    I think they do a once around initial vote right away, to see where they are.

    MegK in reply to Edgehopper. | July 12, 2013 at 5:53 pm

    I am thinking they at least want to review the evidence before making up their minds. An itemized list means they don’t have to go through it piece by piece.

Toure coming unhinged! Mentions whites and Columbine!

    graytonb in reply to Fabi. | July 12, 2013 at 4:57 pm

    You mut have a really strong stomach ( or strong streak of masochism) to be able to watch Toure, Fabi!

      Fabi in reply to graytonb. | July 12, 2013 at 5:27 pm

      A very strong gag reflex!

      (Sadly, it’s the only station on my cable network carrying the trial. Choose not to burn the bandwidth on my cell phone…)

    Karla1953 in reply to Fabi. | July 12, 2013 at 4:59 pm

    Coming unhinged……….Dude has been unhinged for sometime now.

During the Bush Admin we had 2 black Sec States. Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice, the latter who gave a wonderful speech during GOP convention last fall. I recommend anyone who hasn’t seen it to watch it, a very moving speech. Right now we have a black attorney general and a black President of the United States. So why are race relations much worse now than at any time in the last 20 years.

    mwsomerset in reply to styro1. | July 12, 2013 at 5:54 pm

    Because people lost their collective “sheet” when the first black president was elected….and then reelected?

      Fabi in reply to mwsomerset. | July 12, 2013 at 6:35 pm

      Oh, whatever… Condi Rice could run circles around BHO on any subject and I’d empty my bank accounts for her campaign. Get over yourself, please.

Henry Hawkins | July 12, 2013 at 4:53 pm

Jury asking for evidence list indicates nothing – it could just be 5 acquittal voters trying to prove to lone holdout she has her sense of the evidence wrong.

“Evidence list. You could write the states evidence on a popsicle stick.”

And have room left over.

Does anyone have the evidence list or a reasonable facsimile for us to peruse?

Trying to decide what particular piece of evidence they’re needing to examine….

It’s either going to be a quick acquittal, or a long deliberation with one or two holdouts favoring conviction on some lesser charge. If I were on that jury, we’d vote immediately, acquit, and go home, in rapid fashion.

I think the fact that this went to the jury on Friday afternoon actually favors the defense. There is no way this jury comes back with a quick conviction.

I am gobsmacked….I know that they must be prudent, weigh options but if there ever was a clear-cut case of SD this is it. IF they pronounce him guilty of anything other than littering there is no justice in this country anymore. Thugs are free to punch people in the face and you cannot fight back. That will be the message. We have crossed the Rubicon.

    archtyrx in reply to caambers. | July 12, 2013 at 5:26 pm

    if the verdict is guilty and you feel that there isn’t justice in this country because of that, you could always leave. I for one will accept the strentghs and weaknesses of this great country’s justice system.

      healthguyfsu in reply to archtyrx. | July 12, 2013 at 7:57 pm

      Let me get this straight…you will call this a “weakness” of the justice system if he’s not guilty but tell others they should leave if he’s guilty?

      THAT’S RACISSS!

Let’s get some reaction to the jury question:

I say it’s NOT good news for GZ.

    Browndog in reply to Fabi. | July 12, 2013 at 5:04 pm

    How can it be?

    There is no “evidence” that rises to beyond a reasonable doubt.

    JackRussellTerrierist in reply to Fabi. | July 12, 2013 at 5:08 pm

    I agree. The fact that they’re even taking the State’s case seriously enough to request the evidence list tells me a lot.

    archtyrx in reply to Fabi. | July 12, 2013 at 5:27 pm

    it maeans that there certainly won’t be a quick acquittal – you can scuttle that thought right away

Just listening to Greta: Hey, it’s perfectly normal. Having a list of the evidence makes sense.

Me: having a list of the evidence BEFORE you go into deliberation makes better sense.
WTF?

    Ragspierre in reply to Browndog. | July 12, 2013 at 5:11 pm

    Juries take the duties very seriously, in my experience.

    Would you make sure there was nothing you were overlooking?

    I would expect you would.

      Browndog in reply to Ragspierre. | July 12, 2013 at 5:17 pm

      Not arguing, however:

      What “hidden” evidence could there be that was not presented in court that could prove “guilt”?

        Ragspierre in reply to Browndog. | July 12, 2013 at 5:36 pm

        Oh, not saying their is any. You have to understand, these jurors are confronted with multiple FORMS of evidence, as well as a small, bewildering mountain of evidence.

        SOME of that was never seen at trial, as we know. It was admitted, but never published to the jury prior.

      Fabi in reply to Ragspierre. | July 12, 2013 at 5:32 pm

      Thanks, Ragspierre – you’ve offered very dispassionate analyses throughout this case and I, for one, am sincerely grateful.

JackRussellTerrierist | July 12, 2013 at 5:03 pm

Good gawd. The fact that they want an evidence list is disheartening. Where the hell have they been for the last two weeks? We know there is no evidence of any crime occurring except the attack by Trademark on GZ. How in hell could any of these jurors be confused about that?

They should be finished by now with their verdict form filled out NG and be packing their bags.

theduchessofkitty | July 12, 2013 at 5:04 pm

I don’t trust this jury.

An all-female jury?!?!? I’m a female – I think that alone stinks. There should have been more males in that jury. And there should have been 12 people there – not 6! (Why six?!?!?)

The evidence is there for all to see. We have all seen it.

But the prosecution needed to play to an all-female jury. They wanted it that way. They pulled this “Can’t you FEEEEEEEL sorry for this poor mama who will not see his little boy anymore?” emotional schtick. And of course, they have to sprinkle these emotional Bon-bons with a dose of MLK.

Not good.

    Uncle Samuel in reply to Uncle Samuel. | July 12, 2013 at 5:46 pm

    Strange, CNN had posted a link to a Zimmerman family statement, but when I finally went to that page, it did not turn out to be what they advertised. Sorry. If there is a Zimmerman family statement, I’ll find and post it.

    Uncle Samuel in reply to Uncle Samuel. | July 12, 2013 at 5:48 pm

    Here is the Zimmerman Family Statement:

    “From the onset of this tragic event, our family has been clear to express our trust in the judicial system. A jury of one’s peers is the hallmark of our country’s judicial system. The American justice system is the finest in the world. George’s fate is now in the hands of the jury, who will make their decision based on evidence and the facts of the case. As we await a verdict we will remain hopeful and ask for the public to remain peaceful, no matter the outcome. Though we maintain George committed no crime whatsoever, we acknowledge that the people who called for George’s arrest and subsequent trial have now witnessed both events come to pass. We hope now that as Americans we will all respect the rule of law, which begins with respecting the verdict. The judicial system has run its course — pray for justice, pray for peace, pray for our country.”

Greta just said crowd outside courthouse are chanting. Are they chanting “No Wide Screen TV No Peace”?

Maybe I am reading too much into this but BLDR and team seemed very relaxed and jovial but O’Mara and particularly West looked concerned and stressed

Any opinions on what if anything any of this might mean?

Does this jury request offer any insight as to the timbre of the jury?

    Marco100 in reply to DollzWize. | July 12, 2013 at 5:08 pm

    If the jury acquits but takes a long time prosecutors at least made them think about it so given the lack of evidence they did a good job.

    They have nothing to be nervous about because it’s obviously not a slam dunk for the defense at this point.

    ddreyer in reply to DollzWize. | July 12, 2013 at 5:14 pm

    Defense team has a client that might go to prison and so they are understandably tense. The State does not. The State team was tasked with arguing a case without any evidence and now that they are done, they must be relieved.

inquisitivemind | July 12, 2013 at 5:07 pm

O’Mara wants a copy of the list to make sure the state didn’t slip in a copy of GZ’s membership in the KKK

Can someone familiar with court proceedings tell me, if the jury decides to call it a night, will there be a public announcement of that fact so people can get on with their evenings?

Omara and West look stressed because they really truly believe GZ is actually innocent.

In most cases there’s no real doubt about the defendant’s factual guilt.

This is not one of those kind of cases.

If their client goes to jail for 30+ years and they feel he was actually innocent, knowing how little evidence the prosecution had, they will feel horrible about it.

    inquisitivemind in reply to Marco100. | July 12, 2013 at 5:13 pm

    Or they will be filing an emergency appeal

    DollzWize in reply to Marco100. | July 12, 2013 at 5:18 pm

    Thank you for your response, that makes alot of sense.

    I never paid any attention to any of this pretrial, but now that I have been watching, I care deeply for what verdict comes in this travesty of a trial.

    This case Never should have come to court.

    Now after watching this trial I care deeply for Geoge Zimmerman, and admire O’Mara and West as well

      archtyrx in reply to DollzWize. | July 12, 2013 at 5:31 pm

      “Now after watching this trial I care deeply for Geoge Zimmerman…”

      you can have conjugal visits with him in state prison

        Dr Weevil in reply to archtyrx. | July 12, 2013 at 5:39 pm

        I don’t normally reply to trolls, but someone needs to say it: this one’s a coprophagic ninny, who ought to be banned just for this one comment. Of course, the comment does illustrate what kind of people we (most of us) are arguing with.

          DriveBy in reply to Dr Weevil. | July 12, 2013 at 5:49 pm

          I would prefer not to reply to assh*les that label others as Trolls or any other derisive label, I do sometimes, and I also drink Dos Equis…

          While I don’t agree with the supposition that George will definitely be in prison, the Poster’s comment was intended to be snarky and humorous, and he/she succeeded! LOL! 😉

          Dr Weevil in reply to Dr Weevil. | July 12, 2013 at 6:46 pm

          Hmmm. If calling a troll a troll and suggesting he deserves to be banned for making a really stupid sexual joke about an innocent man being sent to jail for 30 years makes me an ‘assh*le’, what does that make DriveBy? Some kind of 28-dimensional hyper-assh*le? Or just an alternate ID for the vile troll archtyrx?

They are going back through the evidence list because, between all of them, they couldn’t find any evidence that supports the prosecution’s case, and they know that must be wrong. I can see them right now in my mind’s eye, all staring at each other and saying “Surely there must be SOME evidence?”

If there is a hung jury can JDN then throw in a JOA to keep from having a retrial due to one holdout who may been a ” plant”………if 5 jurors make a joint statement to the judge that they believe 1 juror is purposefully sabotaging the delibrerations what happens ?

From the Channel 9 blog on the evidence list:

One of the jurors was reported to be a ‘wannabe lawyer’ and said she could get others to consider JUST the evidence. From the appearance of what’s going on, it appears she might be the foreman?

Court clerk just returned with six copies of evidence list. Attorneys are reviewing.

Defense and prosecution approve evidence list. Copies will be delivered to jury.

I don’t know that they will show the list. It is a list of evidence, numbered and with descriptions.

    Browndog in reply to wyntre. | July 12, 2013 at 5:21 pm

    Great. Let us know if she asks for “all” related case law, and asks for a Supreme Court law clerk application.

      wyntre in reply to Browndog. | July 12, 2013 at 5:24 pm

      Hey, I’m just posting comments from the Sanford blog which I find interesting and/or relevant.

      Don’t know about you but I have found it impossible to get anything done today. This trial is riveting.

        MAPTX in reply to wyntre. | July 12, 2013 at 5:29 pm

        Lol today, I haven’t done anything in 2 weeks, I need this trial to end so I can get on with my life

          Browndog in reply to MAPTX. | July 12, 2013 at 5:54 pm

          Boy, Howdy. I can’t believe I got sucked in. Especially when I made a conscious effort not to.

          Fabi in reply to MAPTX. | July 12, 2013 at 6:12 pm

          Heck, this case has cost me at least three strokes on my handicap – and the lost future gambling income resulting therefrom…

          I’m a victim, too!

    franker01 in reply to wyntre. | July 12, 2013 at 8:12 pm

    I’ve been on more juries than I wanted to be on and I was the foreman on a 1st degree murder trial. How did this blogger know that a jury member was a “wannabe lawyer”? Things are private in the room in which the jury deliberates. That kind of info is not available to bloggers, at least in my experience.

Does anyone know if the Jurors do not come back tonite with a verdict, do they pass by the protesters or have the ability to see them when they leave the Courthouse? I have been to that Courthouse but never really paid attention to the back workings of the place. Just curious if anyone does know TIA

    Marco100 in reply to Karla1953. | July 12, 2013 at 5:20 pm

    They all put on Richard Nixon masks and fly off in a replica of Marine One to an undisclosed location.

      Karla1953 in reply to Marco100. | July 12, 2013 at 5:27 pm

      So I guess that is your back handed way of saying you have no idea either :)………….btw the masks will not stop them from seeing or hearing.

    VoiceOfReason in reply to Karla1953. | July 12, 2013 at 5:48 pm

    I was wondering about that too. I worry that as they are leaving they see the hate parade and become afraid to do the right thing and then rationalize voting guilty thus fullfilling my earlier prediction.

Maybe the jury is writing out their last will and testaments because they are planning to acquit and know what will happen to them if they do

Andrew McCarthy a former fed prosecutor has a great article at PJ Media about the judges decision to exclude TM’s text messages.
http://pjmedia.com/andrewmccarthy/2013/07/11/reversible-error-in-zimmerman-before-we-even-get-a-verdict/

Posted that yesterday and sent to the prof’s tipline.

I love McCarthy.

I don’t think the evidence list means anything.
Probably just wanted to look at a few things and realized it was difficult to find.

They just anted to see if there was a list to make things easier.

FWIW, more from Channel 9:

OH in courtroom: O’Mara tells wife in gallery jury’ll likely go til 8/9 tonight b4 break 4 night or verdict.

@DanaChaabanWFTV #zimmermanon9

Comment From Guest

I used to be a litigation attorney. The jury’s request for a listing of the evidence most likely indicates one of two situations in the jury room: (1)at least one juror who wants to systematically consider all the evidence in the case during deliberations; or (2) a holdout juror who is being challenged by the other jurors to point to evidence to defend her position.

What do you want to bet that they want to hear the 6th call made by George Zimmerman about the kids?

Can the jury offer a narrative or justification that they want the judge to deliver on their behalf prior to the verdict being read? Just curious if that’s something that they can do to soften the blow if you will(they may feel it’s necessary-I don’t), if they come in with a not guilty verdict. Some reasoning for the peeps on in the loop.

It has to be a holdout. I dont believe they will find him guilty because at least one juror has to have some sense. But easily at least one could be trying to find him guilty. If they dont reach a not guilty tonight, i think it will be a hung jury early next week.


Font Resize
Contrast Mode