Wednesday, July 30, 2014         

 Print   Email   Comment | View 17 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

Juror: Zimmerman jury was initially split

By Associated Press

LAST UPDATED: 08:09 a.m. HST, Jul 16, 2013

MIAMI » As they began deliberating in George Zimmerman's murder trial, three of the six jurors wanted to acquit him while the other three wanted to convict him of either murder or manslaughter, one of the jurors said.

The six-woman jury ultimately voted to acquit Zimmerman in the fatal shooting of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin.

Zimmerman was charged with second-degree murder in last year's shooting but the jury also was allowed to consider manslaughter.

The woman, known as Juror B37, told CNN's Anderson Cooper on Monday that when the jury began deliberations Friday, they took an initial vote. Three jurors— including B37 — were in favor of acquittal, two supported manslaughter and one backed second-degree murder. She said the jury started going through all the evidence, listening to tapes multiple times.

"That's why it took us so long," said B37, who said she planned to write a book about the trial but later had a change of heart.

When they started looking at the law, the person who initially wanted second-degree murder changed her vote to manslaughter, the juror said. Then they asked for clarification from the judge and went over it again and again. B37 said some jurors wanted to find Zimmerman guilty of something, but there was just no place to go based on the law.

B37 said jurors cried when they gave their final vote to the bailiff.

"I want people to know that we put everything into everything to get this verdict," said the juror, whose face was blacked out during the televised interview but who appeared to become choked up.

The interview came two days after the jury acquitted Zimmerman, a former neighborhood watch volunteer, of second-degree murder in the shooting death of Martin in a gated community in Sanford, Fla. Martin was black, and Zimmerman identifies himself as Hispanic. Zimmerman was not arrested for 44 days, and the delay in charging him led to protests from those who believed race was a factor in the handling of the case.

While prosecutors accused Zimmerman of profiling Martin, Zimmerman maintained he acted in self-defense.

Juror B37, the only juror to speak publicly about the case so far, said Monday that the actions of Zimmerman and Martin both led to the teenager's fatal shooting, but that Zimmerman didn't actually break the law.

While Zimmerman made some poor decisions leading up to the shooting, including leaving his car when police told him not to, Martin wasn't innocent either, the juror said.

"I think both were responsible for the situation they had gotten themselves into," said the juror. "I think they both could have walked away."

The juror said Sanford Police Detective Chris Serino made a big impression on her, because he would have been accustomed to dealing with murders and similar cases. He would have known how to spot a liar, and yet he testified that he believed Zimmerman, the juror said.

Legal analysts agreed that Serino's testimony was a blow to the state's case. The Sanford police were criticized last year for not arresting Zimmerman, and Gov. Rick Scott later appointed a special prosecutor, who brought charges against the neighborhood watch volunteer.

The juror said she didn't think Martin's race was the reason Zimmerman followed him on a dark, rainy night. She said she also believed Martin threw the first punch and that Zimmerman, whom she referred to as "George," had a right to defend himself.

"I have no doubt George feared for his life in the situation he was in at the time," the juror said.

The juror said she was not impressed by the testimony of Rachel Jeantel, who was talking with Martin by cellphone moments before he was fatally shot by Zimmerman.

"I didn't think it was very credible, but I felt very sorry for her," the juror said. "She didn't want to be there."

The juror also commented on defense attorney Don West's knock-knock joke about knowing who Zimmerman was during opening statements.

"The joke was horrible. Nobody got it," she said.

Juror B37 outlined to CNN the process she and the other five jurors went through in their deliberations. She said they spent the first day electing a foreman and getting organized. She said the jury instructions weren't immediately clear and the evidence was in no order whatsoever.

She said it was a difficult process.

"We thought about it for hours and cried over it afterwards," she said. "I don't think any of us could ever do anything like that ever again."

Martin Literary Management announced Monday that it was representing B37 and her husband, who is an attorney. The names of the jurors have not been released, but during jury selection it was disclosed that B37 works in an unspecified management position and has two adult children.

But agency head Sharlene Martin released a statement late Monday saying she was no longer representing the juror and that the juror had dropped the book idea. It included a statement that she said was crafted in conjunction with agency in which the juror explained that being sequestered had kept her shielded "from the depth of pain that exists among the general public over every aspect of the case." The juror said that the book was meant to show that our justice system "can get so complicated that it creates a conflict with our 'spirit' of justice."

The Associated Press was unable to reach the juror.

In a separate interview, Jeantel was asked by CNN's Piers Morgan whether she thought race was a factor in Zimmerman's decision to follow Martin prior to their fight.

"It was racial," she said. "Let's be honest. Racial. If he were white, if Trayvon was white and he had a hoodie on, what would happen?"

She noted that the altercation happened in the early evening, when many people are out walking their dogs or doing other things.

Morgan played back a recording of the juror's comments to CNN about Jeantel's education level and speech, and the witness said it made her sad and angry. Jeantel, who is black, said she also had a feeling that the jury would return a not-guilty verdict.

"They're white," she said of the jury at one point. "Well, one Hispanic. But she's stuck in the middle. I had a feeling it was going to be a 'not guilty.'"

While the court did not release the racial makeup of the jury, the panel appeared to reporters covering jury selection to be made up of five white women and a sixth who may be Hispanic.

 Print   Email   Comment | View 17 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

You must be subscribed to participate in discussions
By participating in online discussions you acknowledge that you have agreed to the TERMS OF SERVICE. An insightful discussion of ideas and viewpoints is encouraged, but comments must be civil and in good taste, with no personal attacks. Because only subscribers are allowed to comment, we have your personal information and are able to contact you. If your comments are inappropriate, you may receive a warning, and if you persist with such comments you may be banned from posting. To report comments that you believe do not follow our guidelines, email commentfeedback@staradvertiser.com.
Leave a comment

Please login to leave a comment.
AhiPoke wrote:
Juror B37 has a perspective on the process that is very real and accurate. Like her, I thought Zimmerman deserved some kind of punishment, after all he killed someone. On the other hand she and the other jurors appear to have followed the law and acquited him. It's sad to see some supporters of Martin, who probably didn't pay much attention to the trial, resort to violence because of the verdict. IMO, black people will find it forever difficult to see a world void of racism if they themselves can only see the world as black and white.
on July 16,2013 | 09:01AM
hanalei395 wrote:
"Jurors cried when they gave their final vote to the bailiff". ... Knowing that although they voted "not guilty" for "George", they knew that "George" will be forever on the move, and be in hiding for the rest of his life.
on July 16,2013 | 09:13AM
cojef wrote:
Sad that the trial result could not have been accepted wih respect for the law. Initially the local jurisdiction declined to pursue prosecution due the lack of sufficient evidence that a crime was committed by George Zimmerman. The FBI was ordered to conduct an investigation to determine whether Trayvon Martin's civil rights were violated, after much rhetoric from the Black community. After spending over a month interviewing over 30 witnesses the FBI concluded that Martin's civil ights were not violated. Due to the continuing political pressures by the Black community and the main stream media, the Governor appointed a special prosecutor to pursue further actions against Zimmerman. The special prosecutor after scheduling a Grand Jury to determine the that there were sufficient evidence to pursue the criminal case against Zimmerman, cancelled the Grand Jury hearings and announced that they would pursue 2nd degree murder indictment against the accused. The legal case is history. George Zimmerman was found not guilty. Case closed, yet the Attorney General is contemplating further legal actions against Mr. Zimmerman. The FBI investigation, the now concluded legal trial, and after the local prosecutor chose not prosecute, what else is needed to placate those who cannot accept or respect the law? More litigation? It will only widen th chasm between the races. Perhaps there are activist that feel discord is necessary to topple democracy.
on July 16,2013 | 09:48AM
Pacej001 wrote:
Well said.
on July 16,2013 | 11:41AM
HawaiiCheeseBall wrote:
Crazy case. I often wondered how a grown man can arm himself, stop and get out of his car and stalk/follow a young man in the middle of the night and end up killing him and not get punished. I kept thinking that if George had the right to "stand his ground" didn't Trevon have the same right, after all he was the one being followed by a stranger, and if so how can George still claim self defense? Remember that Trevon had every right to be where he was, his dad lived in the community. Isn't it ironic then that a Neighborhood Watch volunteer kills this young man, the very person whom Neighborhood Watches were designed to protect? Do you guys think George would had gotten out of his car if he didn't have the Glock? Neighborhood Watch volunteers are supposed to be the eyes and ears of law enforcement but George took it to another level and I think he did it because he was packing. Guns and Neighborhood Watch volunteers - not a good mix.
on July 16,2013 | 11:22AM
Pacej001 wrote:
Cheese. You got almost all of the facts wrong: Z didn't arm himself with the intention of "stalking" T. The "stand your ground" law was not applied in this case. Evidence leads to T being the aggressor, attacking Z. How does being followed give T the right (or even a reason) to attack Z. Z can claim self defense given his injuries and witness accounts of T on top of him. T's father did not live in the community. It was the father's girlfriend. Neighborhood watches were formed in this neighborhood to combat a series of break ins, mainly by black men (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/25/us-usa-florida-shooting-zimmerman-idUSBRE83O18H20120425). There had been multiple burglaries and a home invasion. Z used bad judgement in getting out of his car, but packing a gun was legal, besides he was on his way to the grocery store when he happened to see T.
on July 16,2013 | 11:49AM
hanalei395 wrote:
BOTTOM LINE: ..............."Z" IGNORED the advice from the 911 dispatcher. Which resulted ....Trayvon Martin, being dead. And Zimmerman, although still breathing, a normal life for him, is dead.
on July 16,2013 | 12:19PM
hawaiikone wrote:
Are you planning on murdering Zimmerman yourself? Or are you just encouraging someone else to.
on July 16,2013 | 01:13PM
hanalei395 wrote:
STUPID response by an a....... Per his family, friends and the police ...."George Zimmerman will no longer have a normal life".
on July 16,2013 | 01:31PM
hawaiikone wrote:
Are we a little p****ed? "Dead" is a little different than no longer having a normal life.
on July 16,2013 | 06:37PM
hanalei395 wrote:
Your normal sense of reasoning, if you ever had one, is dead.
on July 16,2013 | 07:08PM
hawaiikone wrote:
If you're unable or unwilling to answer my questions, ridicule or insults will simply leave them unanswered.
on July 16,2013 | 08:35PM
hanalei395 wrote:
Your only question was "Are we a little p******? And you want an answer for that? OK, here's my answer .....I'll tell you later, I like to keep as....... in suspense.
on July 16,2013 | 08:57PM
hawaiikone wrote:
You're not worth the effort.
on July 17,2013 | 04:01PM
Aquarius1 wrote:
You stated generally what I have been thinking about. It would have been interesting to hear the other side of the story had Trayvon Martin survived the shooting. "Stand your ground' is actually a misnomer. Mr. Zimmerman had an obligation to walk away, first,
on July 16,2013 | 01:10PM
Denominator wrote:
Stand your ground law was not a part of the trial. It was irrelevant to this case. Much as Eric Holder is unrelated to the facts.
on July 16,2013 | 05:11PM
EwaWarrior wrote:
Eric Holder and facts in the same sentence are an 0xym0r0n!
on July 17,2013 | 07:14AM
Breaking News