One last question about the Zimmerman Trial: I know everyone is probably tired of talking/debating
and just analyizing everything BUT one thing my wife and I --and it is especially my wife who is serving federal Grand Jury duty herself-- We just don't get how the jury ask a question of the judge who says she needs more detail about the question they are asking. EVERYONE takes a dinner break and suddenly they have decided.
This really the part my wife and I can't wrap our heads around because to us Those more detail questions would probably given the jury more info and understanding of perhaps the case they may not have come back with a verdict so quickly THEY may have come back with a different verdict.
IS anyone else trouble had the jury had a question before the dinner break than return from dinner with a verdict?
Or is this the last thing to be bothered about?
(sorry if this is a repeat topic)
= new reply since forum marked as read
B37 still had one juror to go before bringing back the not guilty verdict, and I'm sure the final one wanted to be convinced that manslaughter could be charged without self-defense. B37 was probably the foreperson ("My husband is a lawyer,"
and got her to submit that question. When the judge's request for specificity came back, B37 said, "See, you're asking a question that I've already provided the answer to," or something like that.
Broken, the final holdout went along with the rest. As a matter of fact, I predicted it just before the verdict came in:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3246834
from juror B37, the one who did the interviews and she said they were confused about manslaughter so the only thing left was not guilty.
This smilie 
seems to me to be apt for this jury. Rather than ask another question to try and understand, they shrugged and threw it aside.
