I don't think Juror B37 and her husband have given up plans to write a book.

[Skwmom]

"As for the alleged "book deal," there is not one at this time."

"At this time" doesn't preclude a future book deal.

I don't think Zimmerman or any of the jury members should profit off of the killing of an unarmed teenager.



http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2013/07/17/statement-from-juror-b37-given-exclusively-to-cnn.

[NYC_SKP]

1. She's also vague about exactly how the relationship with literary agent ended...

She only suggests when, but not how or who ended it (her or the literary agent):

The relationship with the agent ceased the moment I realized what had been occurring in the world during the weeks of my sequestration.

Well that explains when, but not how or why.

The agent pulled the plug, she didn't.

[razorman]

26. I suppose she has the right to publish the book. But, she won't

be making a nickel off of me.

[ejpoeta]

2. my guess is she's waiting for the dust to settle.

of course, maybe she should have done that in the first place! Not 2 days out of the trial and she is writing a book!! not smart at all. she should have waited. First of all, there is a lot of anger about the verdict and she is one of the people who acquitted zimmerman.

[John2]

11. I still can't

believe this verdict and people covering up for Zimmerman, with all the information known about him aggressively following other people and getting in altercations. The State of Florida allowed him to carry a concealed weapon too.

All those people on the jury were women. If I was on that jury with everyone of those women, especially this woman, I would persuade her just how stupid she was to believe O'Mara's and Zimmerman's concocted story of self defense.

I understand some of those women have kids. Ok, picture one of them, just turned 17 years old at 158 pounds against me. I weigh over 200 pounds and I'm a grown man. Trayvon Martin wasn't even a mature man yet. I would guarantee, everyone of those women, their kid would not have a chance against me in a fist fight, much less beating me to death. I don't need a gun to beat a kid that size. Their kid would need a gun against me. OMara used stereo Types about Black males to these women to make Trayvon less than human. Trayvon Martin wouldn't have had a chance against me in a fight. He might injure me a few times, but no way he would be manhandling me, up to the point I'm screaming like a you know what! I know that sounds sexist, but it is just what it is.

His parents and friends just covered up for him. He also shows evidence of having more than a normal relationship with the local police department. Where was Trayvon's coaches, teammates and trainers, if he was such stud?

[darkangel218]

3. I still cant get over the afection in her tone of voice when she said "George"

[Chiyo-chichi]

17. Sounded like she was talking about her own son, didn't it?

[darkangel218]

18. Yes!!

Its sickening. I wonder if any of these jurrors knew him. Its not impossible.

[Baitball Blogger]

4. I've said it before. I hope they do write it.

It will give the DOJ something to work with.

[Skwmom]

6. How would it help the DOJ? n/t

[Baitball Blogger]

15. If they are looking for flaws in the case,

they can start with the voir dire; and then they can move on to how the juror processed the information from the prosecutor and the judge.

I think it will become apparent once she writes her story that she is racist.

[marions ghost]

9. The DOJ

will do ?????????

[Baitball Blogger]

16. They will review the case and examine it from a federal, professional level.

Trust me when I tell you that the state and local government process is Mickey Mouse.

That's putting it kindly. Mostly, it's corrupt.

[marions ghost]

20. They will review it and then

.........................most likely..................nada.

I know that the state and local arena is Mickey Mouse & corrupt. But I don't believe that the DOJ really does much either. Maybe it used to. I think it functions more or less as a figurehead with little real power to effect changes. Just my impression. If you have another impression, go ahead.

[Baitball Blogger]

21. Public outrage and pressure.

It's really sad, but I do believe that investigations are affected by the level of outrage.

All this belief that our Constitution supports a government that protects the rights of even the minority segment of the population is bull crap. Maybe it did, once. But no longer.

[marions ghost]

22. Right--because there's no real ethics at the top

levels of gov't --and the oversight agencies including the DOJ have failed us, we are forced to just scream as best we can. Obviously we don't have enough clout or pressure at present. Because, with the exception of a few notables, the top echelons are not working for the people.

"the minority segment" -- not sure what you mean (you can't mean the 1%, so clarify)

[Baitball Blogger]

25. Protecting the opinions and rights of the minority

was once the brilliance of the Constitution. It ensured that a small segment of the population was not discriminated against and overrun by the prejudices of a majority. The concept worked best during the Civil Rights Era. Think: Individual rights.

In principle our Constitution is based on the fact that everyone has an equal right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It's a pretty thought, but in actuality, it's not working because it appears that some of us have a greater right to life, liberty and a pursuit of happiness than others. During the era of regulation, government use to be the honest broker, ensuring there was a balance. But, no more.

I can see it mostly from a local level. We have community leaders and elected officials colluding with one another and it has undermined every aspect of our society. They cement their relationships through public-private partnerships which are hatched from pseudo government meetings. (think: illegal) By engaging in this form of conduct, government gives these programs "legitimacy" even when the programs are the product of secret meetings between the main parties. Anyone who tries to expose what they are doing wrong are bullied by the community leaders and ostracized by their supporters. It's government sanctioned racketeering.

When business owners become part of this ruse, the potential for corruption increases because they are the ones who can selectively reward new recruits with jobs offers. As the corrupt circle grows, it makes it easier to ostracize all those who are wondering what happened to "honest" government. Instead, we now have a "I got mine, you get yours" form of society.

Do not expect politicians to help you because they also feed at the trough by accepting donations from these unscrupulous people. In what should be the greatest shocker, many of these ruthless individuals are lawyers who work in public government. They are in the best position to look the other way when elected officials begin to conduct government business outside of legal, acceptable parameters. For example, a city attorney can look the other way as a commissioner breaks the dual office rule and takes on several leadership roles in county positions. In return, the city attorney can approach her at the county level, lobbying on behalf of his private client.

This is what actually happened to me. A city attorney did nothing to stop a city commissioner from accepting several county board positions. He then went before her at the county level to lobby a cause on behalf of his client. In the same year, she was busy using her county position to set up an illegal meeting that would bring together a developer and the rest of the city commissioners in an obvious breach of the Sunshine Laws. From there, things would snowball into an avalanche of fraud, conspiracy and cover-ups.

The law enforcement agencies knew about all this and did nothing. I, as a minority member, spent years trying to expose it and they all turned their backs because it would have exposed a corrupt network in this county. It crosses the line between public and private sector. So don't blame just government, since it's their collusion with the stalwarts in the private sector which is creating the inequities in our society.

The only person who bested them, did it in federal court. I think it cost him nearly half a million dollars in lawyer fees.

Trust me when I tell you that only a combination of federal attention and constant public outrage to spur them on to do their fucking jobs, will anything change.

[marions ghost]

28. You and I are definitely on the same page!

You detail exactly how it works. "Government sanctioned racketeering"--absolutely. And as you say, lawyers are often the facilitators helping out their buddies. The oversight is weak to non-existent, allowing for the growth of incestuous public-private liaisons. Where there is opportunity, there will be fraud and theft. Old-fashioned ethics is passe.

"Trust me when I tell you that only a combination of federal attention and constant public outrage to spur them on to do their fucking jobs, will anything change."

Totally agree. But a lot of people are unwilling to look at this. Too depressing & energy-draining. We need much stronger Federal oversight, but those agencies have been so damaged and the caseload is overwhelming. I think we also need to look at what goes on in business and law schools as well.

Keep talking, Baitball Blogger. You write about this problem with a lot of insight. Could expand into a book. You are right--all we have is our voices and our consciences. But not to push back is to be trampled. So many people out there selling their souls to the devil, have no other creed but "I got mine." It is daunting. Know that I have seen what you are talking about in action and I get it & validate your well-expressed points.

[Baitball Blogger]

29. Thank you marions ghost.

You're the first person who has responded in a way that has convinced me that you can see what I see.

Until we hone in on the source of the problem, we're just going to keep chasing our tails. It requires the ability to look at the problem from a bird's eye view. Otherwise, a person could waste their time seeking legal remedies, hiring lawyers who will not reveal their conflicts of interest and will lead them down the wrong path; or politicians who rely on donations from the very people you're trying to expose.

[marions ghost]

31. No problem

I also feel better whenever I encounter someone who really knows about this.

A lot of people are in the dark or it's just too horrible to contemplate. When many of the lawyers, business leaders and politicians are in cahoots (often it involves real estate but also other agendas and schemes) they learn to cover their tracks well publicly, media-wise. But if you become involved and pay too much attention, you stand to lose a sense of trust & security in local government. You also lose your sense of community--for lack of a better word--you know what I mean. You lose the urge to participate and you turn away. This undermines social cohesion. Nobody who's not in the loop wants to think bad corruption is going on in their community so there is a lot of denial. And of course the "I got mine and I want more" people really exploit this mass denial. My thing is social psych rather than politics per se, but I see it clearly operating where I am. When there is no redress of grievances or way to change anything, those who do see become isolated and depressed. But everyone is vulnerable to this situation, if they only knew it.

Yes, a "bird's eye view" is what is needed. More people willing to take a hard look and act on it.

[HappyMe]

5. She is going to try to

wring more than her allotted 15 minutes out of this.

Personally, I think she and her husband should shut the fuck up and go away.

[Control-Z]

23. I still find it hard to believe

that there isn't something highly illegal about arranging a book deal ahead of time. And with a husband and wife team, no less. Kind of makes me wonder what else they arranged ahead of time. Like what the outcome would be, or what outcome this juror planned to push on the others no matter what she heard during the trial.

[HappyMe]

24. The whole thing stinks to high heaven.

The fact that she referred to him so casually as 'George' .

I don't know, this seems to be part of the whole Zimmy circus - the smearing of the victim before the trial, the smearing of Rachel.

Somebody should look into this.

[librechik]

7. djathink? n/t

[Blue_Tires]

8. I think any profits should go to Martin's family....

[DinahMoeHum]

10. Any lawyers here? Might there be a prosecution case here for jury misconduct?. . .

. . .or even perjury regarding "Juror B-37"?

http://sync.democraticunderground.com/10023272343

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/A_Juror_Speaks_Her_Mind

If you click on the Esquire link and scroll down/click on the Comments, a certain "Larry Crofford" offers some interesting food for thought:

(snip)
How in the hell did juror B-37, who once held a gun carry permit, get on that jury? People who are not cops or in the military who carry concealed weapons have at least a tiny bit of paranoia in their personalities, i.e., they fear some act of criminal violence could befall them at any moment, and probably buy into certain prejudices against the black people. Vigorous probing during voir dire might have brought her fears and prejudices to light. And were any of the potential jurors asked whether they hoped to get a book deal out of their experience? A not guilty verdict would surely be worth more money for a book than a conviction.
(snip)
I spent 30 years trying serious felonies, 7 as a defense attorney and 23 as a prosecutor, and never had the chance to try a so-called "trial of the century", but I do believe the hope of landing a book deal should be an automatic disqualifier. That's a potential financial interest in the outcome of a case. Once, several years ago, I did have a non-expert witness on the stand who in a non-responsive answer to a question opine that the victim would not have had gunshot residue on his hands because he probably had washed them before going to the police. She admitted that she had no forensic science training, but she did watch CSI on TV. TV viewing habits made it into my voir dire in every frickin' case after that.
(snip)
I've got to wonder why she changed her mind. In some states, not mine, juror misconduct can result in mistrial even after a verdict has been rendered. In my state only the defense can challenge a verdict based on misconduct. Arguably, given her rush to find a book deal, juror B37 may have had a financial interest in getting on that jury. That's a no-no.
(snip)


Just askin'. If any of you DUers are lawyers, I'd appreciate some feedback. Thanks.

[leftyohiolib]

12. she didnt change her mind the publisher pulled the deal

[warrior1]

13. I hope that they investigate

when this book deal started. Was she talking with her husband about this case when she was on the jury.

It stinks to high heaven.

[alsame]

30. She had family visits on weekends.

"Jurors watched television and movies, exercised at the hotel fitness center, and spent weekends being visited by family and friends," the sheriff's statement said, noting that jurors could also request visits from members of the religious community. Anyone visiting members of the jury were asked to sign an agreement indicating they would not discuss the case with the jury member.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/07/17/zimmerman-trayvon-martin-sanford-jury-seminole-county/2530283/

[Nye Bevan]

14. Is this equally outrageous?

And how about the books written by Chris Darden and Marcia Clark after the OJ trial?

[HappyMe]

19. I don't tend to read any of that crap.

[southernyankeebelle]

27. I agree. But it is also in our hands to not buy the book. I know that is what I'll do.