If a juror feels he or she made the right decison, why hide?

[apples and oranges]

They let a man who killed an unarmed teen walk. There are a lot of hurt people who want to know why they ruled the way they did. Now I'm hearing that they might get to remain anonymous forever?

[Blackford]

1. They won't remain anonymous forever

Their identities will be revealed. People have seen their faces in the court.

Their names will come out.

[AgingAmerican]

90. they are protected by law

Ñt

[cthulu2016]

2. This is vile. Please think twice and delete it.

[markiv]

4. +1

[pintobean]

8. +2

[apples and oranges]

11. What is vile? I didn't call for violence or revenge

I really want to know why they didn't pick manslaughter. Their decision has caused a national upset.

[morningfog]

17. It is none of your business, thurthfully. The jury decision is privileged.

If they want to talk they can, but they owe nothing to anyone.

[premium]

32. +1000. nt.

[kestrel91316]

48. They don't owe you or anyone else an explanation.

I know it would be nice, but given that the jury are probably all racists who thought Trayvon deserved to die (given the community they hail from), that's unlikely.

[Summer Hathaway]

84. You (and people like you)

are most likely the reason why the jurors wish to hold on to their privacy.

" ... given that the jury are probably all racists who thought Trayvon deserved to die (given the community they hail from)."

You have pre-judged said jurors as "racists who thought Trayvon deserved to die", and have based that judgement on the fact that they come from a particular community.

You might want to think about your own prejudices before projecting them onto others.

[kestrel91316]

85. No, because I am merely expressing an opinion. I don't wish them harm and am not calling for it.

I reserve my ill will for Zimmy and his ilk. Gun toting creepy crackers.

[Summer Hathaway]

87. I didn't say you wished harm, or were advocating it.

The fact remains that you have "expressed an opinion" that the jurors "are probably racists" who "thought Trayvon deserved to die". And you have based that opinion on the "community they hail from".

You have decided who these people are, what they think, and why they think the way they do without knowing them, and without any insight whatsoever into their individual personalities, backgrounds, life experiences, etc.

Pre-judging people in that manner is no different than pre-judging people you DON'T KNOW based on their color, their religion, their sexual orientation, or the community in which they reside.

Prejudice, clear and simple.

[Anansi1171]

109. True, his comment was prejudice, but at least the Jurors get to live freely, as does GZ. -NT

[loyalsister]

110. A person doesn't have to be a racist to misread

a convoluted mess of facts and their various interpretations. The jury really had their work cut out for the. I don't think it's fair to judge them.

[Summer Hathaway]

112. I wasn't the one judging them.

I was responding to the person who was.

[loyalsister]

113. Sorry

Maybe someone who can use it will appreciate it.

[Summer Hathaway]

114. No problem.

[OwnedByCats]

73. Simple

Not enough evidence. We may not like it, but that's the reason.

[X_Digger]

21. +3 n/t

[840high]

25. +3

[JVS]

26. +1

[Agschmid]

27. +... like a million. n/t

[YarnAddict]

31. +3

[COLGATE4]

58. +!00

[Tuesday Afternoon]

68. +1

[rug]

77. +1000

[onenote]

3. It has nothing to do with what the jurors' think

and everything to do with the fact that there are hotheads on both sides that would take issue with the decision. If they had convicted and asked to remain anonymous would you be asking the same question?

[LittleBlue]

5. So that they aren't attacked

or face any other repercussions that might weigh in their decision. They should be free to make a decision without public scrutiny. They were called as jurors, this isn't a position they chose to be in.

[apples and oranges]

12. Attacked by who? Can you name one instance where a juror was attacked?

[LittleBlue]

14. Physically, by the media verbally

by their neighbors or employers, etc.

There are ways to punish them that don't involve being physically attacked. They should be free to make a decision based on the evidence and not what may happen in their personal lives.

The jury should remain anonymous if they choose.

[RZM]

20. Indeed. Who would go for that?

If a juror puts themself out there, they become an instant celeb. And a lot of the attention would be negative. No normal person would want that.

[NaturalHigh]

63. They have been attacked in the social media already.

Do you really think there aren't people who would love to take it further, maybe harassing phone calls, honking horns, and yes, physical harm? You are being intentionally obtuse. You know better, whether you admit it or not. I won't speculate about your motivation.

[markiv]

6. do you want a jury, or q jury and a mob?

that what you want, when YOU serve on a jury?

[SoCalNative]

35. I'm smart enough

to know how to get out of jury duty. Can't same the same for these 6 losers.

[markiv]

37. who do you think puts people like that on juries?

ever occur to you it's the people who 'know how to get out of jury duty'?

dont cry about juries if you shirk your duty when it's your turn

[customerserviceguy]

39. Ah, so your "it can't happen to me"

is that you duck jury duty. Of course, any physical or emotional violence towards any of those six women is justified by their stupidity to have been selected for jury duty, right?

The reaction to this verdict sometimes sickens me. I expected dismay, shock, even some anger, but the calls for boycotts and exposure of the women on the jury to consequences is more what I would have associated with a reich-wing forum.

[ZombieHorde]

45. I have gotten out of jury duty, but I wanted to serve.

I would like to serve on a jury sometime, but I don't often have the time due to school.

[whistler162]

46. saying you are smart enough to

get out of jury duty shows your lack of smarts!

[X_Digger]

51. You know what? It's people like you that lead to decisions like this.

If I weren't feeling generous, I'd say something that would be rightly hidden by a jury- of anonymous jurors.

[Ms. Toad]

80. +1000

Although it is all too common.

I was called for jury duty twice while I was in law school and wanted to serve. The law school actively encouraged me to try to get out of it. Wouldn't you think that serving on a jury would give me far more legal education than the few classes I would have missed?

(I went through the motions, but I have far too much connection with the criminal justice system for either lawyer to want me on the case in one instance (and knew one of the attorneys in a context that might have made things awkward), in the other they didn't need any new juries during the week I was supposed to serve.)

[X_Digger]

81. I've served quite a few times- I consider it my civic duty, even when shitty timing.

The most interesting? When I served on a state Grand Jury. In some states (TX in this case) the GJ gets to ask a LOT of questions.. like why wasn't X evidence collected, or why was Y evidence collected but not presented to the GJ, or even to ask for more investigation about Z facet.

The state's attorney gets beat up one side and down the other through the whole thing.

[Union Scribe]

107. Then you have no legitimacy to complain about the justice system.

Any more than someone who "gets out of voting" has a credible gripe with government.

[loli phabay]

7. because there are nutjobs out there who may try to harm them

Hell even on here you can see hatred for them, if you dont want people to vote due to the fear of what may happen to them you need to try to protect their anonymity.

[JustAnotherGen]

9. I think they need to remain anonymous

We know why they went the way they did anyways . . .

[RZM]

10. Isn't this just a rehash of the pro-snooping argument?

'If you didn't do anything wrong, you have nothing to fear.'

It doesn't work like that.

[apples and oranges]

99. More of a pro-leaker argument

Do you support Manning or Snowden and their info dumps? I thought transparency was a good thing?

[Union Scribe]

106. You seem to have entirely missed the point

Citizens are supposed to have privacy. That has been invaded by the government, which should not have the level of privacy they do. The entire affair has been about people's privacy and respecting it.

[Spazito]

13. I strongly disagree with their verdict, I believe they got it wrong but...

I also strongly believe they are entitled to remain anonymous if they choose to do so. Without that right to anonymity, fewer and fewer people would be willing to serve, especially on high profile cases and juries are an essential part of the democratic process.

[Demo_Chris]

15. Actually, anonymity is a BAD thing in a jury system...

How else are we to know whether or not they were actually honest and impartial? I see nothing wrong with a waiting period of a few days, but I believe it is important to know who these people are. Not only in cases like this -- perhaps less in cases like this -- but I don't want to see anonymous juries deciding the fate of, for example, Occupy protestors.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

29. and when you get charged

and a huge swath of the community believes that you are guilty but you know you are not, you better hope that jury has no reason to vote out of fear of their lives or livelihood...

sP

[JimDandy]

55. The same can be said for verdicts from anonymous juries...

you better hope that the jury has no reason to vote out of prejudice, because of the cover that that anonymity gives them.

Secrecy anywhere in government is almost never a good thing. That's why we have public trials, with (supposedly) juries of our peers; legislatures and a congress that are required to make bills public and vote openly on them (yes, I know, those processes are corruptible); citizen initiative petitions with the signatories made public; and the docs, phone calls, emails etc, of our government workers are deemed public property.

If you think of jurors as essentially temporary government workers, then you should get why they must not remain anonymous, after a trial is over. Every citizen in Florida, and especially in Sanford, has a valid interest in knowing who the jurors were in the Zimmerman trial.

[Demo_Chris]

88. That's always been a danger I suppose, but our system is based on sunlight. nt

[ProdigalJunkMail]

30. and what if they HAD convicted him

and then had to have their names and faces splashed all over the damned place so that the nut jobs armed to the teeth and upset about the loss for their little buddy can easily then identify them???

sP

[JimDandy]

69. Trials are adversarial in their nature-there is ALWAYS

going to be one side angered by the verdict. That can not be a reason to corrupt our system of justice, and allowing jurors permanent anonymity is a mechanism to do just that. Sequestering, not anonymity, is the mechanism that needs to be used in every trial, until it's conclusion, to help ensure a fair verdict.

Anonymity is what actually opens the door to an unfair verdict. It would be similar to allowing people to go to the polls, but not state their name nor address, and still be allowed to vote without ever having to account to us,the other citizens, that they have a legal right to vote about decisions that affect the community.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

75. no... not by such huge swaths of the population

and embers of anger and hatred stirred by the media. when the media paints a target on you... you're fucked.

sP

[delta17]

86. What about organized crime trials?

What if someone just said to a juror "Hey, your kids go to XXX Elementary School, right?" Do you think anyone would vote to convict John Gotti or Whitey Bulger if they knew their names would be revealed?

[Demo_Chris]

89. Yes, I do actually. But in any case...

the ONLY way to ensure that we maintain a jury system in which we are judged by our peers and not state shills is disclosure. And if that means the occassional crime boss escapes justice it can be no worse than the current "Too big to prosecute" deal we have going on today.

[Travis_0004]

52. At this point it really doesn't matter.

Even if it turned out that all 6 members were KKK members, there still wouldn't be a new trial.

ALso, both sides got a chance to get rid of Jury members they didn't like, so a lot of time was spent finding juriors that both sides agreed on.

[Yo_Mama]

70. You think jury anonymity isn't absolutely required in certain cases?

Such as, historically, Mafia/gang cases? You think those types of organizations wouldn't threaten families?

Rich people as defendants? Wouldn't target the juries?

The jury system exists to equalize the playing field between the powerful with influence and the rest of the population. Fine, it's imperfect. But it is better than the alternative.

Who the hell would serve on the jury of a powerful gang member up for murder without anonymity? You'd be better off going to jail, or you'd be forced to acquit.

In this case, because of the nature of the case and the public passions aroused, these jurors would be harassed by media if nothing else. In practice, I'm sure they would be exposed to death threats if their names were publicized regardless of whichever verdict they reached.

The prosecution and the defense, supervised by the judge, vet the jurors. They have a chance right there to get rid of those who might have a connection or personal prejudice. What additional purpose would it serve to have the public in on it? Do you think the public doesn't have some very imbalanced, very violent members?

[ProdigalJunkMail]

76. thank you for expanding on the point I was too annoyed and fed up to make... n/t

[Demo_Chris]

91. There are probably several million jury trials every year...

The identities of these juries are almost always public. Some of these cases are every bit as controversial as this one, and EVERY felony case is a huge deal to someone -- someone who as often as not has a personal interest in the outcome.

Kindly show me a few cases in which a jury member was killed for their vote.

If the danger you suggest is even remotely real it should be EASY. So back up the claim.

[Yo_Mama]

92. Ah, google is your friend

http://www.nytimes.com/1988/01/13/nyregion/mafia-trial-discloses-inquiry-into-jury-tampering.html

Under TN law, all death penalty juries are sequestered:
http://www.memphisdailynews.com/editorial/ArticleEmail.aspx?id=32183

Gang members, murder, Poughkeepsie:
http://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/article/20130602/NEWS01/306010039/Jury-5-reputed-gang-members-guilty-murder-attempt

Missouri also requires sequestration in capital cases:
http://www.courts.mo.gov/hosted/resourcecenter/TJCB%20Published%20April%208.2011/CH_06_JurySeq_files/CH_06_JurySeq.htm

2011, FL, gang trial, murder of witness, followed by partial sequestration:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/11/florida-gang-witness-killing_n_924277.html

It's not rare in Mafia trials:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/06/04/jury-selection-in-bulger-trial-may-not-resemble-other-mob-cases/

[Demo_Chris]

95. Sequestration is not the same thing...

No one is suggesting that juries not be protected DURING a trial. In any case that was not the challenge to you. I asked you to link me a few examples of jury members being hunted down and killed after a trial. Again, we have millions of jury trials every year, so if this were ever vaguely common it should be simple to provide dozens of examples.

[treestar]

97. Reminds me of the hooded judges in Peru

It was supposed to be for their safety.

[AgingAmerican]

98. That would make it too dangerous

Think

[pipi_k]

16. Seriously?

I mean, really?

The world isn't full of whackos who would think nothing of retaliating against a juror who didn't vote the "right" way?

Jurors who have family...children...

Whackos wouldn't target them as well?

sigh...

[Mass]

18. I think some of them may think it was the wrong verdict, but also saw they would be stuck for the

week-end if they did not find an unanimous verdict.

Why else not answer the message the judge send them and ask a specific question about manslaughter after they asked the more generic one?

[NutmegYankee]

19. Lets say they think that...

Obviously many others do not and may want to lash out at them. I'm sure they know that.

[lpbk2713]

22. Tell me you're serious.

There are extremist nut jobs of every flavor passing for normal until the right impetus nudges them over the edge. Myself, I would have found a way to be excused if I had been selected to appear for jury consideration in this high profile case.

[Orrex]

23. If they have nothing to hide, they have nothing to fear, right?

[pintobean]

24. Your answers are

all over this website. All you have to do is look. Jurors risking repercussions to say the same things won't change anything. Look at what happens to DUers who dare to post opinions, based on the law and the facts of the case, that are different from opinions of those who demanded a conviction.

Do you think the real world is much different?

[JVS]

28. I agree with Cthulu, although I think it would be interesting if jurors were also asked to write...

brief justifications either collectively or individually that get submitted along with the verdict.


Anonymity is important to keep though.

[tarheelsunc]

33. Give them a while for tensions to die down...

once they feel people have "forgot about" the case and their lives wouldn't be "in danger," at least some of them will come out. The potential for moneymaking is too great to ignore.

[customerserviceguy]

41. How much money do you think it will take

to safeguard your life for the rest of it from those who want vengeance in the wake of this verdict? Not a single one of those jurors (or all of them collectively) could make nearly as much as GZ stands to get from his suit against MSNBC, and it's still not going to be enough to protect him 24/7.

[dairydog91]

34. Exposing jury decisions to "Appeal to the Mob" is fundamentally at odds with impartiality?

If jury members wish to remain anonymous, so be it. I don't think trashing the basic building blocks of objective juries is a good idea.

[TheKentuckian]

36. Some history, some civics, and thinking would seem to be in order.

I don't see what you could be thinking

[NaturalHigh]

38. Because they'll have threats against them.

Look how many people on this message board hate them. Do you really think there aren't some people out there who would like to do more than type out insults?

[Union Scribe]

40. Dunno, why aren't you posting under your real name? nt

[Inkfreak]

61. lol. (nt)

[apples and oranges]

100. I'm not affecting anyone else's life

while posting anonymously.

[cleveramerican]

42. Heartbreak and Anger are powerful emotions

If it was me I'd want to remain as anonymous as possible.
The thousands of folks who,over the course of this, became heavily invested in a certain outcome just might lash out

[Contrary1]

43. When I served on a murder trial...

we were escorted to our cars by armed law enforcement, after using exits not open to the public.
Had nothing to do with our decision. Had everything to do with our safety and that of our families.

But I think you already knew that.

[BlueJazz]

44. If we were a completely civilized society, knowing who was on the jury would be interesting...

...you know the rest of my post..

[Ruby the Liberal]

47. Because they just made the shoot 'em if you got 'em defense perfectly legal in Florida

They should be afraid of what they just unleashed in that state.

[The Straight Story]

49. Make sure if you serve on a DU jury to put your real name and other info

Just in case someone wants to ask you some follow up questions

[Hekate]

105. +1 Someone might want to pay a personal visit, after all.

No irrational passions here at DU.

[Skittles]

53. because like George, many demented people find vigilantism acceptable

[noamnety]

54. The jurors are not on trial.

I found their decision abhorrent and inexcusable.

But they don't owe me anything, it's not part of the judicial process that people who are ordered to jury duty are then legally or morally obligated to become fodder for extremists on either side of the case, ridiculed by social media, or subject to paparazzi style interrogations, or hounded by protesters outside their homes, etc.

I liken it to our country's secret ballot elections, which ensure you can vote how you want without fear of retribution. Part of the trade off in free elections is that people are free to vote for complete assholes. But at least they aren't voting a certain way because of fear of retribution.

[rusty fender]

56. Oh, they will come out of hiding as soon as there is money

to be made.

[Callmecrazy]

79. That's my opinion also...

I'll bet they meet with agents and ghost writers on Monday.

[Rex]

57. Fear at the backlash for their decision.

They are probably afraid someone will kill them for their decision.

[Skittles]

116. in other words, they are afraid of people like....Zimmerman

[jwirr]

59. The reason I would like to know more about their decision is because I would like to know what they

think they saw that we did not see? Why did they think he was innocent? Did it ever occur to them that Trayvon was definitely innocent?

[Nye Bevan]

60. Coming from someone who refers to themself only as "apples and oranges",

this is a little ironic.

What are *you* hiding from?

[NCTraveler]

62. I don't think you are being serious. nt

[jberryhill]

64. So says "apples and oranges"

Is that your real name?

[Rex]

71. Real name - butter and bombs.

[FarCenter]

65. No matter what verdict they render, there are a bunch of nuts on the other side.

[Catherine Vincent]

66. I hope their names are released

Just as the names of the jurors for OJ were released.

[Yo_Mama]

67. Because they will be the target of threats and media harassment?

I forget what the incidence of serious mental disturbance is. Pretty high in organized sports apparently, but in the general population it is much lower. Numbers are usually between 1-3%.

In any case, when you have millions of people, you are always going to have a significant number who are somewhat mentally confused. When you have an emotionally distraught situation such as this, the possibility of at least getting death threats is pretty high, and in the case of the seriously deluded, they may not just be threats. I assume that the jurors DO feel that they reached the appropriate decision under the law as they were instructed. That does not mean they want to be the target of media harassment, threats and other intrusions upon their private lives.

Mind you, that would almost certainly be the case if they had convicted Zimmerman also. Huge numbers of people seem to have decided one way or another before the trial even started.

So if the jury in these situations does not have the right to remain anonymous, these people's lives would be deeply disturbed regardless of what verdict they had reached. Being called to serve on a jury should not become a sentence of years of disruption.

Jurors are private citizens called by the state to serve a public function, but they should have the option to remain private citizens. And even if you feel passionately that these people should become the personal targets of public sentiment, what about their other family members? Do you think their children should be exposed to that?

[OwnedByCats]

72. Considering some those who have

come out to side of the defense, including witnesses, have received death threats - gee, can't see why they'd want to be anonymous

[Apophis]

74. It's because someone will go after them for their horrible verdict.

[rug]

78. The same reason people don't want other people knocking on their doors Saturday morning.

[Sheldon Cooper]

82. They can have their anonymity.

And I hope that deep in their souls they never find peace again.

[OwnedByCats]

83. Going by the law, they made the

right decision, there just wasn't enough proof. If they want to remain anonymous because some do not accept that, then I believe they have that right. People wanted them to go by emotion and assumptions and you CANNOT when you're on a jury. It had to have been hard for them, but they followed the law. Period.

[flvegan]

93. (facepalm) Jesus Christ.

Really?

[DirkGently]

94. Because crazy people who believe "they let a man walk" will attack them?

Disgusting.

[Honeycombe8]

96. They're not anonymous, really. But do you blame them for not wanting to get out in the middle

of all the hatred circulating on the tv and on the internet? They might get threatened or worse.

They've done their job. They have a right to privacy. Just like OJ's jurors and Casey Anthony's jurors. That's the justice system.

Someone will probably talk about it later, after all the heat has died down.

[Jenoch]

101. "If a juror feels he or she made the right decison, why hide?"

This isn't a serious question, is it? Are you really saying you cannot come up with a reason they wish to keep their names private?

[Lil Missy]

102. So some idiot cannot retaliate against them, that's why.

What a dumb question.

[Hekate]

103. Dumb question. Really.

First and foremost, they were sequestered from all outside information.

Second, they kept being sent out of the courtroom while the rest of the country could watch the lawyers wrangle like a reality show.

They didn't get to see what everyone else could see.

Third and final: as soon as they walked out of there, they knew a shitstorm was flying. NOW they'll have access to the information and opinions all the rest of us have seen.

Personally I would lock up my house, pack up the dog and kids, and drive away in the dead of night to visit my out of state sister for awhile.

[onpatrol98]

104. They're not anonymous...

They are not anonymous. People did see them in the courthouse. I perfectly understand why they wouldn't want to come out in the public. They know a good percentage of the public loathes them. That's tough. To know that people who don't know you, loathe you.

But, they did what they saw fit and they will live with the consequences of it. Eventually, they will get with like minded individuals...if they haven't already, and after a good ego boost, we'll see them on television. Not all of them, though.

I believe the reason it took so long for a verdict, and the reason they asked for additional information is that they had to convince someone, maybe a couple of jurors not to convict.

It would be one thing if they went behind closed doors and came right back out. Then we would know this thing was fixed. But, at least one of them thought George belonged behind bars and caved. That's why it took 14 or however many hours.

So, eventually, the true believers will emerge. George's friend that gave him a ride. You know, the 2nd time he changed his story...that guy has already written a book and is making money.

They'll be out. Just watch and see. But, I don't want to see them. I'm sickened now at the thought of them.

But, you already know what they'd say if they could. "There just wasn't enough evidence. Yes...we know George was armed and dangerous, followed an unarmed black teenager, then shot and killed him...but, I mean, that wasn't enough to send a man to jail over. We just weren't convinced that he deserved jail for killing him.

Trayvon was armed with a sidewalk. No, we can't explain why he didn't have George's DNA on him after beating him senselessly...but, really. Is it worth jail time? Of course, not. You have to kill someone of value for jail time."

[Vattel]

108. I hope that only a few idiots loathe them.

[onpatrol98]

111. I'm betting there are quite a few

Not to the degree that would want bodily harm or misfortune. But, enough to feel genuine contempt.

I mean, people express loathing for politicians who make bad policies, or pet owners who mistreat their pets, and individuals who abuse the environment...

Loathing for individuals who would purposely allow a child murderer go free...not a stretch, at all.

-----------------------------
In a few days, people will express all manner of disdain for a President that's done nothing but try to help them. Disdain for this group of jurors...not a problem.

[mzmolly]

115. Because they have families

and the world is full of nuts?