I blame the prosecution.

[yardwork]

They blew the case. They blew it in jury selection. Five whites and one Hispanic judging a Hispanic-Anglo who shot a black child. There should have been at least one black juror.

Even after the jury selection debacle, the prosecution could have recovered and put on a decent case. Instead they built their case off the killer's narrative. The prosecution never laid out all the evidence proving Zimmerman's lies. They allowed the jury to condemn Trayvon Martin to death.

Edit autocorrect

[In_The_Wind]

1. I agree with you. The jury selection wasn't good enough.

[In_The_Wind]

30. Hello ~ ZEROzipNADA. It's not about the ethnicity of the jury. It is about ...

going into the courtroom without social bias: Prejudice, Stereotyping, and Discrimination.

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[notadmblnd]

2. The prosecution was lazy

They didn't want to prosecute to begin with so they put no real effort in their case. They went along with the defense narrative and put next to nothing into rebutting it.

[Laurian]

3. I agree about the jury. Many seemed to think

an all female jury was a good thing. I never took comfort from the fact of an all white (except for one, perhaps), female jury. I know there is no scarcity of angry, white female racists.

Note: I am a retired, white female living in the South and have heard a lot of white females express ugly, racist opinions.

Hate is not gender specific.

[Skidmore]

4. And we keep hearing how the South has

changed so much. It's there under the surface. We are no more than three or four generations out from slavery and my generation saw the end of Jim Crow laws.

[Warpy]

5. I do, too, they did a piss poor job of pointing out inconsistencies

with Zimmerman's story and shifting the focus of the trial back to the guy on trial, not the kid that guy killed.

[katmondoo]

6. I think the fix was in

Zimmerman was not to be convicted and the prosecution was told to tone it down.

[Blue_Tires]

7. Another poster in a different thread made a good point

About the possibility of "taking a dive" to protect just how horribly and unprofessionally Sanford PD conducted their initial cover-up-turned-investigation...

[LittleBlue]

8. To be fair, their witnesses were terrible

Starting with the fiasco of Rachel Jeantel, it only spiraled into oblivion from there.

You couldn't tell whether they were there to help the prosecution or the defense. Some looked like they were straight out of an SNL skit.

[yardwork]

19. Then the prosecution should have prepared more carefully.

The prosecution should not have been surprised over and over again by their own witnesses.

Furthermore, the prosecution should have made it clear to the jury that many of the witnesses had a serious conflict of interest. As residents of a condo association that encouraged Zimmerman to "patrol" as a vigilante while armed, they are potentially liable for negligence. If Zimmerman had been convicted of anything, the likelihood of successful civil suits against the members of the HOA becomes much more likely. Every single resident of that condo association has a very good financial reason for wanting Zimmerman to be acquitted. Just because one lawsuit has been settled doesn't mean that more aren't possible.

[pintobean]

9. The prosecution destroyed their own credibility

when Bernie lied to the jury early on in his closing arguments. He was trying to establish that Zimmerman was lying about knowing that Martin was dead. He was talking about when Jonathan Manalo was talking to GZ's wife on the phone while Zim was being handcuffed. He said that Zim interrupted Manalo and said "just tell her I killed him".
I recognized the lie as soon as he said it. Manalo was a prosecution witness, and under direct from Bernie himself, testified that GZ said "just tell her I shot someone".

I doubt that the jury missed this. I don't expect them to have much faith in the word of the prosecution. Lying in an attempt to establish that someone else is lying is pretty sleazy. John Guy didn't help matters when he tried to shift the burden of proof. Taking the women of the jury for fools was not a good idea.

[yardwork]

16. That was a weak example of Zimmerman's lies anyway. That's what I mean.

The prosecution wasted time (and fell all over their own feet and got things wrong anyway) on minor issues while ignoring stark, obvious inconsistencies and lies in Zimmerman's account.

[pintobean]

25. It wasn't a weak example of anything

It was a fabrication.

[yardwork]

33. My point is that it was a minor issue to focus on anyway, while ignoring big glaring issues.

Who cares whether Zimmerman said "shot" or "killed?" It is a minor point, much more minor than lots of other things that the prosecution ignored.

[Major Hogwash]

36. The jury had no credibility. They're the ones who blew this case.

The prosecution could have done stage plays, reinactments, made a tv movie, called in some black attorneys, it would NOT have mattered to that jury.

[OwnedByCats]

37. So we're assuming shit about the jury now?

You don't know one damn thing about these women, NOTHING. The prosecution fucked this up, period. It's not rocket science, the prosecution did not bring enough evidence, too much reasonable doubt. You have a problem with the jury decision, you blame the prosecution, not them. They followed their instructions.

[Major Hogwash]

39. You just assumed a whole lot of shit about those women!!!

It's easy to understand how they came to their decision when you find out they lived in Florida, they were raised in Florida, learned everything they know right there in Florida.
They even learned that black kids have no right to walk down the street without being stalked and killed in Florida!!!!!!!

It's easy for me to see how someone who never lived anywhere else would make those kinds of determinations.

[OwnedByCats]

41. I said they FOLLOWED THE LAW

That is it. I didn't assume they had no credibility, that they must be racist, stupid or damn, it must be because they are from Florida! - which by the way, one of them was from Chicago and only just moved to Florida within the last year or two.

Assumptions all over the damn place by MANY here.

The prosecution did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not act in self defense. It was their job to prove 2nd degree murder/manslaughter to the jury and they DID NOT! End of story!

[pintobean]

42. Did you have any problem with the profiling in this case?

[Major Hogwash]

43. Are you talking about the way Zimmerman profiled Trayvon??

I think that much was obvious.

[Lurks Often]

46. No, it is about how you profiled the female jury n/t

[Major Hogwash]

49. Because they weren't white??

Sure, sure.

And Obama is not a real Black man!!

[Lurks Often]

51. And what does the President have anything to do with this thread?

"It's easy to understand how they came to their decision when you find out they lived in Florida, they were raised in Florida, learned everything they know right there in Florida.
They even learned that black kids have no right to walk down the street without being stalked and killed in Florida!!!!!!!

It's easy for me to see how someone who never lived anywhere else would make those kinds of determinations"

You don't know any of these women and yet with your amazing psychic abilities you've determined they are all racist because you didn't get the verdict you wanted.

Ok then

And you wonder why people don't take your posts seriously

[B2G]

45. No shit. And 3 of them had recently moved there.

[pintobean]

50. I think there was a major irony recognition failure

But I recognize hogwash when I see it.

[Major Hogwash]

53. You're the one who said it, so you have to own it.

[pintobean]

55. No problem. I own everything I posted in this thread

and you own everything you posted.

[Major Hogwash]

56. You own everything you ever posted here!!!

Especially in Meta!!

[pintobean]

59. Yes, we all do

I don't know about especially anything, though.

[hack89]

10. They had to answer every element of Z's story

that's how it works in self defense cases. The burden of proof is solely the prosecution's. The state had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was not self defense. Leaving any point unanswered leaves the door wide open for reasonable doubt. With no eyewitnesses and the presumption of innocence, Z got to set the narrative.

[yardwork]

12. There were lots of inconsistencies and obvious lies in Zimmerman's story.

A competent prosecution would have laid out the inconsistencies.

For instance, no reasonable person would believe that Zimmerman's head was "smashed 20 or 30 times against the concrete sidewalk" after seeing the photos of Zimmerman's actual injuries. His injuries were so minimal it is not at all clear that Martin ever laid a hand on him. The prosecution should have laid that out for the jury.

Another example is Zimmerman's unbelievable story about how Martin "grabbed at his gun two or three times" and how Zimmerman was then forced to draw the gun and shoot Martin. Ok, Zimmerman also told police that his gun was in a hidden holster under his waistband, over his right butt cheek. And Zimmerman told the police in his reenactment video that Martin had him on his back, straddling him, with his knees on his legs, smashing his head into the concrete. Ok, tell me how Zimmerman draws a gun behind his right butt cheek with a seventeen year old pinning him down? Physically impossible. Also highly unlikely that right-handed Martin would have been able to "grab" Zimmerman's hidden gun under the right side of his butt in that scenario. So this is an obvious fabrication on Zimmerman's part.

If the prosecution had done a better job of pointing out these physical impossibilities that point to Zimmerman lying, then that undoes Zimmerman's entire story, his only reason to feel in fear for his life. If the jury had had these lies shown to them, then I think that they might have voted to convict, but again the highly-charged racial issues call that into doubt.

[hack89]

28. Those " inconsistencies" and "lies" are obvious to you

have you ever considered that they are not as significant as you think they are?

I am not a lawyer - I have no understanding of how trials actually work. But I think the prosecution did the best they could do with the bad hand that was dealt to them.

[yardwork]

32. You tell me how Zimmerman pulls that gun out from under him.

[hack89]

35. I wasn't there

Just like you. That is a question for the jury. Perhaps it was not a significant part of their deliberations. Perhaps other factors were more important to them.

[Lurks Often]

48. The PROSECUTION acknowledged that Martin struck Zimmerman

and was on top of Zimmerman during at least part of the fight. Or did you miss that testimony?

[yardwork]

52. That's exactly what I'm talking about.

There is no proof that Martin ever laid a hand on Zimmerman. The eyewitness testimony was confused and conflicting. The prosecution never should have taken the killer's word for what happened. Huge mistake.

[Pelican]

11. If you are depending on race instead of evidence...

... then you deserve to lose.

[yardwork]

13. If you think that all black males are violent, drug-addled killers then you live in a prison anyway.

[Pelican]

15. WTF are you talking about?

[hrmjustin]

14. Trayvon had a bag of Skittles and a drink and the evil ove had a gun. Your going to tell me the evil

one is innocent?

[Pelican]

17. I'll say that Zimmerman has been determined to be "Not guilty"

... by a legal standard.

I think that the jury felt that Martin probably initiated the violence and that Zimmerman had a reasonable fear for serious harm based on the evidence presented.

[hrmjustin]

18. Do you think Trayvon started it?

[Pelican]

20. Hell if I know...

I wasn't there.

I think the jury thinks that Martin probably reacted to the presence of Zimmerman with violence. That's just a guess though...

[hrmjustin]

21. This whole thing is a miscarriage of justice.

[Pelican]

22. and?

[hrmjustin]

23. And it must be proclaimed loudly here and elsewhere.

Don't you think so?

[lumpy]

31. And some here don't give a damn, but continue on supporting a cold hearted killer who has

warped self serving ambition that led to a unwarranted killing. Another failure of the justice system and the influence of an immoral segment of the American people.

[OwnedByCats]

40. Nobody is supporting GZ by supporting our

judicial process. What kind of system would you rather have? One that assumes guilt without proof?

[byeya]

26. I would add that I think the police mishandled the affair from the beginning making it

hard for the prosecution - or easy for the prosecution to do less than a "due diligence" job.

[lumpy]

34. Correct. Letting this killing go 40 days without a thorough investigation helped to let Zimmerman

get off without one ounce of responsibility for killing an innocent person. They have ownership for contributing to this miscarriage of justice.

[lumberjack_jeff]

27. I think they overreached.

They could have convicted him (or plea-bargained) for a lesser charge.

[GiaGiovanni]

29. I'm with you on this. The witness preparation was abysmal.

The eyewitnesses were badly prepared and fell apart on cross. The medical examiner, Dr. Bao, was clearly not under the control of the prosecution (as he should have been) even bringing his own notes (written the day after the autopsy) to the trial, unknown to either the prosecution or defense. Add that to the ME's continually changing evidence of how long Trayvon might have been alive past the gunshot, and you get a shaky witness. Finally, Rachel Jeantel had a brutal cross-examination for which she needed to be better prepared, especially as to her demeanor in court.

I blame the prosecution for losing this case. There is no reason that a manslaughter conviction should not have resulted.

[COLGATE4]

64. As a trial lawyer, I can tell you that you can only

prepare witnesses to the extent that they want to be prepared. MD's (including the M.E.) are usually very difficult witnesses to prepare, as they tend to believe that they are better lawyers than the lawyers. And poor Rachel Jeantel was an accident waiting to happen on the stand. They did the best with what they had. It's not like on T.V.

[GiaGiovanni]

65. I can see how doctors would be arrogant enough to ignore your advice

But in a case like this, any misstep could spell disaster. I can't believe an ME would just not coordinate with the prosecution on his testimony.

Also, did it seem to you that Jeantel was on some kind of psychotropic meds? A counselor friend of mine thought for sure she was on something.

[COLGATE4]

66. The ME did seem to have an inordinately high opinion of

himself. I will bet dollars to donuts that the Prosecution asked him more than once if they had all of his notes, etc. But apparently the day (or a few days) before trial he disregarded that and took it upon himself to make some crib sheets, which he then tried to use at trial. The Defense quite rightly bitched about that, since under rules governing Discovery that's pure ambush.

I don't know about Rachel Jeantel. It's possible she was on some type of medication so she wouldn't fall apart from nerves. In any case, I felt her testimony was not totally believable, and her aggressive attitude didn't win her any credibility.

[otohara]

38. I Blame Guns

no guns no gun deaths.

I loath this country.

[Vattel]

44. The prosecution had no case.

They didn't blow anything. They tried to argue that Zimmerman attacked Martin rather than vice-versa and they obviously had insufficient evidence to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt.

[yardwork]

47. No evidence that Zimmerman attacked Martin?

WTF. Zimmerman shot and killed Martin.

[Vattel]

54. I mean attacked as opposed to defending himself against an attack.

[Benton D Struckcheon]

57. The approach I thought they'd take would be to compare Z's story vs the evidence

Instead, they were like diarrhea: all over the place. I couldn't figure out what they were trying to argue. What you do is you say: Z said he took the gun out of the holster while on the ground trying to get out from under Trayvon. As Lisa Bloom on MSNBC repeatedly pointed out, with the gun in a holster that was behind his back there would have been no way for him to get to the gun. For some reason, the prosecution didn't emphasize that. I'm not sure if they ever even brought it up.
Anyway, just one example. There are lots. The physical evidence directly contradicted just about everything Z claimed.

[yardwork]

60. Exactly.

[Revanchist]

58. I blame, in order of importance

Zimmerman, for getting out of his vehicle and pursuing Trayvon, the police, for failing to properly collect the evidence at the time of the incident, and the prosecution for the way that they handled the case. Even after the botched job by the police, I think a competent prosecutor could of presented the evidence and the facts in a way to gain a conviction for manslaughter, but I don't think the DA's office put their best and brightest on the case.

[Punkingal]

61. Jury selection, maybe...

But I watched the whole trial and I thought the PA's were good. I think they wanted to win. They were passionate, and showed their contempt for Zimmerman.

[Honeycombe8]

62. Have you ever been on a jury panel or selected for a jury? It's hard to get what you want.

If you have, then you know that it's hard to find poor people and/or minorities (who are much represented in the "poor" category) who don't claim the hardship exemption for sitting on a trial that may last a while. They don't get paid while on a trial and would maybe not be able to make their rent payment, if they got picked for a trial that lasts weeks.

If you don't have a lot of Af. Americans on the panel, it's hard to get one on the jury (and you have to fenagle that...you can't say it's because of race; that's against discrimination laws).

I just ran across that a few months ago. On a panel of 36, there was only one Af. American. In a county with a healthy minority population. The panelists are chosen from voter registration rolls.

So it's not as easy as you think. There's a reason these were mainly women, and 1/4th of them were not employees (one was retired...another ...I forget, but I don't think she had to work every day).

The way it works is you get a certain # of panelists that you can strike without giving a reason. Then you have a certain # of them that you can excuse, but you have to give a valid reason. So you end up picking the worst ones to get rid of, and you're left with what's left. They are usually the quiet ones who didn't say anything to make a lawyer want to get rid of them. The other side can object to the ones you want off the jury, so you don't necessarily get all the ones off the jury that you want.

In other words, you don't pick the ones you want, exactly. You pick to excuse the ones you definitely don't want.

In that community, I don't think there's a large Af. American population. That's what I've read. So there probably weren't many on the larger panel that they had to choose from.

But I hope you're not saying an Af. American would have voted guilty just because of his race. I hope that's not true. Just like I hope it's not true this jury voted not guilty because they're white.

[mzmolly]

63. The judge overruled the prosecution wanting to remove two

jurors.