I couldn't understand how those jurors could not grasp how all the inconsistencies, the comments

[Maraya1969]

that seemed to come out of a Stand Your Ground textbook and the physical impossibility of Treyvon Martin seeing Zimmerman's gun while he was up at his armpits with his legs straddling Zimmerman and then reach for that gun only to have Zimmerman be able to get his gun which is under him, while laying on his back and having someone sitting on him. And that is just one example of the very high number of implausibilities the Zimmerman said.

Then I remembered all the people I'd read about on the net and a few in real life who insisted that Z would not get a fair trial because the jurors would be afraid of those scary black people rioting. And how Fox news was so supportive of Z and all the other conservative websites and then I remembered this study.

http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/01/04/0956797611421206.abstract

Despite their important implications for interpersonal behaviors and relations, cognitive abilities have been largely ignored as explanations of prejudice. We proposed and tested mediation models in which lower cognitive ability predicts greater prejudice, an effect mediated through the endorsement of right-wing ideologies (social conservatism, right-wing authoritarianism) and low levels of contact with out-groups. In an analysis of two large-scale, nationally representative United Kingdom data sets (N = 15,874), we found that lower general intelligence (g) in childhood predicts greater racism in adulthood, and this effect was largely mediated via conservative ideology. A secondary analysis of a U.S. data set confirmed a predictive effect of poor abstract-reasoning skills on antihomosexual prejudice, a relation partially mediated by both authoritarianism and low levels of intergroup contact. All analyses controlled for education and socioeconomic status. Our results suggest that cognitive abilities play a critical, albeit underappreciated, role in prejudice. Consequently, we recommend a heightened focus on cognitive ability in research on prejudice and a better integration of cognitive ability into prejudice models.

And this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/27/intelligence-study-links-prejudice_n_1237796.html

Why might less intelligent people be drawn to conservative ideologies? Because such ideologies feature "structure and order" that make it easier to comprehend a complicated world, Dodson said. "Unfortunately, many of these features can also contribute to prejudice," he added.
=====================================================
"Reality is complicated and messy," he told The Huffington Post in an email. "Ideologies get rid of the messiness and impose a simpler solution. So, it may not be surprising that people with less cognitive capacity will be attracted to simplifying ideologies."
=====================================================


So 6 conservative racist women on a jury pool might sound like a statistical anomaly but remember that racist and conservative is exactly what the defense wanted and they had professional jury pickers helping them find them. Perhaps the prosecution lost the trial right after the last juror was seated.

Basically these women could not put it together in their heads what most of us put together. They went for the simple, "too many robberies and they were all done by black men so of course a person would be suspicious of a black man walking around in the neighborhood." (although I can't find information to support that statement that all the robberies were committed by black men..........but racists and conservatives would not think to look for supportive information. The "fact" fits right into their simpleton thinking.)

And so does their inability to think abstractly and be able to "see" how Zimmerman's explanation of what happened could not possibly be true. Nor would they see all the Stand Your Ground lines he kept repeating and realize how contrived it was.

If they were all conservatives, (and remember the defense was purposely looking for them and I suspect that the prosecution did not realize the implications of those types of jurors.) then 2 little centimeters cuts on his head was the result of his head being smashed against the concrete maybe 25 times.

Anyway I hope you get my point.

[In_The_Wind]

1. Because they were biased from the start.

[Maraya1969]

2. Yea that's exactly my point.

[In_The_Wind]

4. I was supporting that. The legal system in Florida is seriously skewed.

[etherealtruth]

14. Exaclty

The defense's case only worked if one believed that Martin was a randomly violent, probably drug "crazed" miscreant ... believing Martin was the aforementioned one would have to believe that black males are to be feared (ie clutch your purse tighter because a black man walked by)

[GeorgeGist]

3. In America ...

Money can buy anything. Justice be damned.

[KharmaTrain]

5. They Were Only Instructed...

...to decide if Zimmerman killing Martin was "self defense"...a very narrow charge with a very high burden of proof. The prosecution didn't help itself by helping push that "reasonable doubt" that let Zimmerman walk. The judicial system worked...what failed are the laws and how they worked in Zimmerman's favor despite overwhelming evidence that Martin was murdered and Zimmerman walked. We can replay this trial over and over but the bottom line is this jury did what it was instructed to do...only judge on those narrow range of charges and there wasn't enough proof presented by the state for them to send Zimmerman to jail. The defense was able to put Martin on trial and sadly the prosecution helped with that narrative. Here's hoping the Martin family pushes through with a civil suit to prevent Zimmerman from profiting from this sad situation and the unnecessary murder of their child.

[Maraya1969]

20. I believe all his lies prove that it was not self defene. Why say you were banged 25 times

on the concrete only to come up with 2 little tiny cuts which bead DOWNWARD, (if you were on the ground on your back the blood would have pooled up.) That is so obvious a fabrication and why would someone fabricate most of his stories in a self defense trial? ......because it wasn't self defense.

[katmondoo]

6. This jury lived in the community

How could they go home in peace if they found Zimmerman guilty. Sanford is a very bigoted town. The evidence really never mattered. It was a black kid and of course he had to be guilty of something. Zimmerman no matter how convoluted his explanation was white therefor innocent

[unblock]

7. the problem in interpreting jury decisions is figuring out what they thought "reasonable doubt" was

there's plenty of room to think it *probably* wasn't self-defense but that's not the question; the standard is beyond a reasonable doubt.

and that's really hard to figure out when we see what the media wants us to see rather than what the judge has determined was admissible.


personally i find it a problematic result regardless of the actual evidence. i mean, most random killers could use this story.

[onenote]

13. If most random killers could do the same thing, why haven't they?

Is it that Zimmerman, who all agree is a rather dimwitted fellow, is actually the most brilliant criminal mind of our lifetimes?

Or is it simply that the law stacks the deck in a particular direction?

[Maraya1969]

21. I don't think he was a brillian criminal either. But I also think the jury could not follow the

abstract thought needed to see that and were find with it. I also think Fl. laws are insane and probably do favor white people. Remember the woman who was just sentenced to 20 years for firing a warning shot? Would they have done that if she was white?

[onenote]

36. A few things about the Marissa Alexander case

I think the decision by the judge in that case was wrong. I think that the judge should have granted the defendant's stand your ground motion and the case should never have gone to trial. It seems, however, that a lot of people here think that the stand your ground law should be repealed.

I also think the 20 year sentence, over which the court had no discretion, was unjust. HOwever, that sentence was the product of a mandatory and enhanced sentencing law of the kind that is generally supported by those in favor of stronger laws against crimes committed with guns.

Finally, I'd note that the jury in the Alexander case included an African-American woman. Yet even she voted to convict.

Again, I think its an unjust result not because of Stand Your Ground but because Stand Your Ground wasn't applied correctly. And to the extent its the result of an insane law, its the law that mandated a 20 year sentence for a crime committed with a gun (10 years) with another ten years tacked on automatically because the gun was fired.

[unblock]

37. i don't think a black, armed accused person would even bother trying that story with a white victim.

it's not the law per se that's problematic, it's the law in conjunction with the racist attitudes of both the shooters and the jurors.

[alsame]

8. Years ago, my father was foreman

of a sequestered jury. It wasn't even a murder or bodily injury case, I think it was all monetary. But it was a highly publicized local case, which is why they were sequestered.

Anyway, when he got out, he told me and my brothers that if we were ever on trial we should ask for a bench trial because the jury system is such a crap shoot. He said there were jurors who simply refused to believe physical evidence, insisted they saw/heard things that weren't there and basically had a set of preconceived notions that impacted their decisions. Also that some jurors were extremely influenced by how much they liked or disliked the attorneys, witnesses, the plaintiff and the defendant. It was a hung jury.

Now, if you add in conservative ideology, racism and gun worship, you can see what might have happened with this jury.

I'm a white woman and I felt sick when I heard who was on the jury.

[pipoman]

9. 4 words are all that matter..

"beyond a reasonable doubt"..FFS, this is so simple, anyone who watched the case and say that they know Z is guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt" based on the evidence presented are simply not being intellectually honest..

[MH1]

10. The prosecution "didn't realize", or more likely, DIDN'T CARE. nt.

[dragonlady]

11. The prosecution has to work with the jury pool that is drawn

These people all come from the county. There is only so much the prosecution can do with the challenges allowed. Somewhere I read that they were trying to get mothers on the jury in hopes of reaching their compassionate instincts. Picking a jury involves all kinds of stereotyping about how the person will perform, but it's about all they have to go on.

[Starry Messenger]

12. A little off-topic, but maybe someone can answer-

how many states have juries of only six? I was very surprised to hear this jury was so small, but didn't have time to ask with the other elements going on in the trial.

[Maraya1969]

23. I never heard of only 6 people on a jury either for murder especially!

Maybe that is racist too. Conservatives know that the less people that vote in a election the better chance they have.

[Orrex]

15. Doesn't every criminal trial have "professional jury pickers?"

Isn't that what the jury selection process is all about?

[Maraya1969]

24. I believe the defense has more money to spend and can hire the best.

[YarnAddict]

16. Don't blame these six women

and don't make accusations (conservative, racist, unintelligent) that you know nothing about. Blame the prosecution for not making a case that could remove reasonable doubt. They didn't do it. These women took their duties seriously, working hard for 15 hours to come up with the verdict they believed was right, based on the evidence before them.

besides, the prosecution had a voice in picking the jury. These jurors must have been acceptable to them, as well as to the defense.

[COLGATE4]

18. +1

[Maraya1969]

27. And I don't think the prosecution thought about how conservativeness and racism

go hand in hand or did much in trying to get average people or liberals on the jury.

And I have every right to express my opinion of what happened. Every person I saw who was a Z supporter never once mentioned the inconsistencies. They stick their heads in the sand and they don't think as well as say, the people on this forum. These are the same type of people who still believe that we are in a 16 trillion deficit when we are actually at a record surplus. The president is black and that could every single thought they have about him.

[YarnAddict]

32. Well, it's good that you know more

about jury selection than seasoned prosecutors.

You are entitled to your opinion, and I am entitled to mine, which is that you have no idea what went on in that jury room, and that it is better to give the jurors the benefit of the doubt, rather than accusing them of racism, stupidity, or whatever else you think is wrong with them.

[premium]

28. +1000. nt.

[DirkGently]

17. I don't know a single lawyer who thought Z would be convicted.

This is the same mindset who didn't get why Casey Anthony couldn't be convicted.

The way our legal system is "skewed" is to err on the side of not convicting people.

The fact that someone appears to be an asshole does not create a set of facts under which you can convict them of murder.

[COLGATE4]

19. Very well put. nt

[Maraya1969]

29. If our legal system is skewed to err on the side of not convicting people why do we convict

black people at a much higher rates than white people? Why do black men get the death penalty so much more than white men?

[DirkGently]

34. There is racial bias in policing, prosecution, & juries. Not the

same thing as this case. I think you can argue a black shooter wouldn't have been shown the deference Zimmerman got after the shooting. I don't think there's a case that the acquittal was racist, or the self-defense statute employed, which is about what every other state has, is racist.

[premium]

30. Very eloquently said.

Almost every lawyer I listened to, and I listened to a lot of them before, during and after the trial, were saying that the prosecution miserably failed to prove their case beyond the a reasonable doubt.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

22. Two words: Jury nullification!

[Maraya1969]

31. Yea those are the words.

[Horse with no Name]

25. I think that juries watch too much TV and have no idea what "reasonable" doubt means

Zimmerman's scenario was bogus. The jury could have thrown their account of it out and dealt with the evidence and come to the right conclusion.

The only "reasonable doubt" in the scenario was the defense that Zimmerman's legal team presented.

[ohheckyeah]

38. I'm not sure you know what reasonable doubt means....

it is left up to each juror to determine what is reasonable doubt and what isn't.

reasonable doubt n. not being sure of a criminal defendant's guilt to a moral certainty. Thus, a juror (or judge sitting without a jury) must be convinced of guilt of a crime (or the degree of crime, as murder instead of manslaughter) "beyond a reasonable doubt," and the jury will be told so by the judge in the jury instructions. However, it is a subjective test since each juror will have to decide if his/her doubt is reasonable. It is more difficult to convict under that test, than "preponderance of the evidence" to decide for the plaintiff (party bringing the suit) in a civil (non-criminal) trial.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Reasonable+Doubt

[LittleBlue]

26. The problem wasn't Zimmerman's story, it was the prosecution

Merely finding inconsistencies in Zimmerman's background doesn't move the prosecution's case beyond a reasonable doubt.

That's the prosecution's job, and they failed. Several people on DU and in the media pointed this out.

Guilty people sometimes get off because they successfully introduced reasonable doubt at trial. That's life.

[Maraya1969]

33. See you and everyone who says the prosecution dropped the ball also can see clearly

that Z was guilty. They actually showed stuff that made me laugh at the absurdity of Z's testimony. Why did the jury not see what all these others saw?

[LittleBlue]

35. I don't know if Z was guilty

I don't fully trust his explanation, but at the same time, I'm not certain it's a lie. He has some supporting evidence. I'm not convinced of his innocence or guilt.

I just pointed out that some guilty people must surely get off with such a high burden of proof. Z may or may not be one of them.

[SleeplessinSoCal]

39. I appreciate the passion and the search for answers.

Thanks Maraya for your thoughtful examination. Maybe I'm getting too old, but this nightmare seems like deja vu. The "what ifs" and the "if onlys" tend to accompany an obvious miscarriage of justice like this. In this case it's exacerbated by the polarized society we coexist in today.

What if the Constitution granted freedom and full rights to every American from the get-go? If only Lincoln weren't assassinated? Or John F. Kennedy or Martin Luther King, Jr? Imagine this country with a proper system of schools which puts value in poor children's education as well as a rich child's. Or, when the day comes that drug possession is decriminalized, prisons may not be such horribly overcrowded places to stash our people and many fewer Americans will be felons for doing something that harms nobody but themselves.

So many "What ifs".

[Maraya1969]

40. Good Points.