Posters for the jury

[Si modo]

We need a way to keep outside influences away that is if we are going to be open to what is shown in court.

I understand that would be certainly ideal, but how could it be realistic?

We are news junkies. We post here where there are others who are the same.

Personally, as I posted in #167, I believe we have all shown, to varying degrees, an ability to analyze objectively. As such, I don't see that ability going away. And, we will keep others in check as well.

I'm trying to balance pragmatism with modeling a real jury and there have to be compromises, IMO.

Please read again post #167 and see if those guidelines make sense...my purpose with those was to find such a balance.

Otherwise, I don't have any ideas how we would accomplish such isolation, and still have folks willing to participate.

Let me know if you see something else that will work.

Thanks, Reb.

I don't know, Si, if there is any more we can do; we'll just have to rely on the jury pool observing the rules on the honor system, checking each other on anything based on "facts" which have not been admitted into the record, and following the guidelines laid out in #167.

I do like WW's suggestion that the actual voting on guilty/not guilty be handled by PM to you, on each ballot (if more than one vote is needed). That will give all of us a secret ballot, which I think would be a good idea. Only you will know how each of us voted. You can simply post the numbers on the thread, when everyone's vote is in. Thoughts?

Right. And, I very much like the idea of ballots by PM...good idea. Let's do it...

I edit the guidelines and include that edit in my PM to folks confirming their buy in. Likely will do that tomorrow, and we can wait for responses from all, and get this all finalized before the end of the week.

Anyone opposed to adding WW to the list of alternates?

 

[California Girl]

I understand that would be certainly ideal, but how could it be realistic?

We are news junkies. We post here where there are others who are the same.

Personally, as I posted in #167, I believe we have all shown, to varying degrees, an ability to analyze objectively. As such, I don't see that ability going away. And, we will keep others in check as well.

I'm trying to balance pragmatism with modeling a real jury and there have to be compromises, IMO.

Please read again post #167 and see if those guidelines make sense...my purpose with those was to find such a balance.

Otherwise, I don't have any ideas how we would accomplish such isolation, and still have folks willing to participate.

Let me know if you see something else that will work.

Thanks, Reb.

I don't know, Si, if there is any more we can do; we'll just have to rely on the jury pool observing the rules on the honor system, checking each other on anything based on "facts" which have not been admitted into the record, and following the guidelines laid out in #167.

I do like WW's suggestion that the actual voting on guilty/not guilty be handled by PM to you, on each ballot (if more than one vote is needed). That will give all of us a secret ballot, which I think would be a good idea. Only you will know how each of us voted. You can simply post the numbers on the thread, when everyone's vote is in. Thoughts?

Right. And, I very much like the idea of ballots by PM...good idea. Let's do it...

I edit the guidelines and include that edit in my PM to folks confirming their buy in. Likely will do that tomorrow, and we can wait for responses from all, and get this all finalized before the end of the week.

Anyone opposed to adding WW to the list of alternates?

How many committed jurors have we got now? It would be helpful to have an updated list of everyone' who has accepted.

 

[Si modo]

I don't know, Si, if there is any more we can do; we'll just have to rely on the jury pool observing the rules on the honor system, checking each other on anything based on "facts" which have not been admitted into the record, and following the guidelines laid out in #167.

I do like WW's suggestion that the actual voting on guilty/not guilty be handled by PM to you, on each ballot (if more than one vote is needed). That will give all of us a secret ballot, which I think would be a good idea. Only you will know how each of us voted. You can simply post the numbers on the thread, when everyone's vote is in. Thoughts?

Right. And, I very much like the idea of ballots by PM...good idea. Let's do it...

I edit the guidelines and include that edit in my PM to folks confirming their buy in. Likely will do that tomorrow, and we can wait for responses from all, and get this all finalized before the end of the week.

Anyone opposed to adding WW to the list of alternates?

How many committed jurors have we got now? It would be helpful to have an updated list of everyone' who has accepted.

We only have those who have accepted in this thread.

That's why I want to get the guidelines ironed out so I can PM them to everyone on the list and get buy in...a finalized version and a final buy in.

So far, you, me, Reb, Gadfly, HG, Emma, Lockejaw and a few others...can't recall right now.

Of the alternates, just MeBelle


So, I wanna get the guidelines down...by the end of tonight....then can ask folks again and anew if they still can do it.

 

[rightwinger]

I don't know, Si, if there is any more we can do; we'll just have to rely on the jury pool observing the rules on the honor system, checking each other on anything based on "facts" which have not been admitted into the record, and following the guidelines laid out in #167.

I do like WW's suggestion that the actual voting on guilty/not guilty be handled by PM to you, on each ballot (if more than one vote is needed). That will give all of us a secret ballot, which I think would be a good idea. Only you will know how each of us voted. You can simply post the numbers on the thread, when everyone's vote is in. Thoughts?

Right. And, I very much like the idea of ballots by PM...good idea. Let's do it...

I edit the guidelines and include that edit in my PM to folks confirming their buy in. Likely will do that tomorrow, and we can wait for responses from all, and get this all finalized before the end of the week.

Anyone opposed to adding WW to the list of alternates?

How many committed jurors have we got now? It would be helpful to have an updated list of everyone' who has accepted.

I think tHis case will play out like the OJ trial where the case will be decided in jury selection. It will only take one or two jurors who believe in gun rights and unlimited rights to defend yourself to hang the jury.

I think the prosecution wants this settled out of court. They will offer up manslaughter and a year in jail.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I understand that would be certainly ideal, but how could it be realistic?

We are news junkies. We post here where there are others who are the same.

Personally, as I posted in #167, I believe we have all shown, to varying degrees, an ability to analyze objectively. As such, I don't see that ability going away. And, we will keep others in check as well.

I'm trying to balance pragmatism with modeling a real jury and there have to be compromises, IMO.

Please read again post #167 and see if those guidelines make sense...my purpose with those was to find such a balance.

Otherwise, I don't have any ideas how we would accomplish such isolation, and still have folks willing to participate.

Let me know if you see something else that will work.

Thanks, Reb.

What I was referring to was other posters arguing about what happen and what constitutes murder in this thread. I have unsubscribed from all the trayvon zimmerman thread and dang iot if they aren't following me here.

In this thread, it's OK, IMO. Once we get the who and hows taken care of and confirmed, I'll start another thread and maybe Trajan can help us there - if he can, if he's willing.

If not, well it IS USMB......

OK I guess I'll unsubscribe to this one.

 

[Si modo]

What I was referring to was other posters arguing about what happen and what constitutes murder in this thread. I have unsubscribed from all the trayvon zimmerman thread and dang iot if they aren't following me here.

In this thread, it's OK, IMO. Once we get the who and hows taken care of and confirmed, I'll start another thread and maybe Trajan can help us there - if he can, if he's willing.

If not, well it IS USMB......

OK I guess I'll unsubscribe to this one.

Meh, I can't control that...as I said, it's USMB...most of us can see the important parts of the thread.



I look at this thread where the idea grew thanks to you guys. And, the idea gelled, too.

The next thread should be pretty good, I think.

 

[saveliberty]

We need a way to keep outside influences away that is if we are going to be open to what is shown in court.

I understand that would be certainly ideal, but how could it be realistic?

We are news junkies. We post here where there are others who are the same.

Personally, as I posted in #167, I believe we have all shown, to varying degrees, an ability to analyze objectively. As such, I don't see that ability going away. And, we will keep others in check as well.

I'm trying to balance pragmatism with modeling a real jury and there have to be compromises, IMO.

Please read again post #167 and see if those guidelines make sense...my purpose with those was to find such a balance.

Otherwise, I don't have any ideas how we would accomplish such isolation, and still have folks willing to participate.

Let me know if you see something else that will work.

Thanks, Reb.

I don't know, Si, if there is any more we can do; we'll just have to rely on the jury pool observing the rules on the honor system, checking each other on anything based on "facts" which have not been admitted into the record, and following the guidelines laid out in #167.

I do like WW's suggestion that the actual voting on guilty/not guilty be handled by PM to you, on each ballot (if more than one vote is needed). That will give all of us a secret ballot, which I think would be a good idea. Only you will know how each of us voted. You can simply post the numbers on the thread, when everyone's vote is in. Thoughts?

After the first ballot is usually where the real deliberations begin. That would be the most interesting for us posters to watch (not comment on in your thread). Although it would be fun to parallel your thread during delibertions with our own take on which jurors seem to see things as we do.

 

[saveliberty]

See how admitting you killed someone shifts the burden of proof in self defense to the accused?

It is for the prosecution to prove or not prove it's charge. It is not for the defense to prove jack shit.

Actually , CG, Save has a point here. Self defense is what is called an "affirmative defense", which simply means the burden of proof in asserting that defense is on the defendant; BUT, (and this is critical), the standard of proof required of the defendant is NOT "beyond a reasonable doubt", but simply the "preponderance of the evidence"; that is, if the greater weight of evidence favors the defendant's affirmative defense (however slightly), it must be presumed to be so; the burden on the defense is not to prove, but to simply tip the scale. This is not a trivial distinction. Further, the defense will have the opportunity, under this Florida statute, to present a motion for dismissal of the murder charge if it can show to the satisfaction of the judge presiding that the preponderance of the evidence indicates self defense. The judge may so find, and dismiss the case, or leave the finding to a jury.

The real worm in the apple here may be the current Florida self defense statute; its wording would suggest that a use of deadly force is self defense, provided only that the defending party was not where he was unlawfully, did not commit an "unlawful act" prior to whatever "unlawful act" by the other party led to the use of deadly force, and that the force was used in "reasonable" fear of death, OR "serious bodily injury". To overcome "the preponderance of evidence" affirmation by the defendant, the state would thus have to show either that he (a) violated some Florida statute prior to the "unlawful act" of the other, or (b) that his fear of death or serious injury was not "reasonable" under the circumstances. The overall effect, as I interpret it, is to create a fairly low bar for the defense to clear to establish self defense; it appears in this case it would be sufficient simply to show no violation of Florida law in the incident, up to the use of deadly force, and that his fear of death or serious injury was reasonable, by the standard of common sense. A showing that the other party's conduct was a felony under statute, would be sufficient to establish the latter point, so it is entirely possible that the Florida statute on "aggravated battery" might also come into play; it's not hard to imagine the defense asserting it in this case.

All that is somewhat confusing, but I think we may very well be confronted with exactly that sort of confusion with regard to the application of law in this case.

You have captured this case perfectly Gadfly. Thank you.

 

[Si modo]

I understand that would be certainly ideal, but how could it be realistic?

We are news junkies. We post here where there are others who are the same.

Personally, as I posted in #167, I believe we have all shown, to varying degrees, an ability to analyze objectively. As such, I don't see that ability going away. And, we will keep others in check as well.

I'm trying to balance pragmatism with modeling a real jury and there have to be compromises, IMO.

Please read again post #167 and see if those guidelines make sense...my purpose with those was to find such a balance.

Otherwise, I don't have any ideas how we would accomplish such isolation, and still have folks willing to participate.

Let me know if you see something else that will work.

Thanks, Reb.

I don't know, Si, if there is any more we can do; we'll just have to rely on the jury pool observing the rules on the honor system, checking each other on anything based on "facts" which have not been admitted into the record, and following the guidelines laid out in #167.

I do like WW's suggestion that the actual voting on guilty/not guilty be handled by PM to you, on each ballot (if more than one vote is needed). That will give all of us a secret ballot, which I think would be a good idea. Only you will know how each of us voted. You can simply post the numbers on the thread, when everyone's vote is in. Thoughts?

After the first ballot is usually where the real deliberations begin. That would be the most interesting for us posters to watch (not comment on in your thread). Although it would be fun to parallel your thread during delibertions with our own take on which jurors seem to see things as we do.

With the guidelines, you can post during deliberations. We can't make new rules at USMB for a thread. I personally, would be against that.

But, the members of the mock jury and alternates already have agreed only to consider what the real jury sees.

So, we're good.

But, the actual straw polls and votes will be in PM.

 

[saveliberty]

It seems only respectful that we would NOT post in your thread at all. We can simply start our own at that time and label it for nonjurors.

 

[Si modo]

It seems only respectful that we would NOT post in your thread at all. We can simply start our own at that time and label it for nonjurors.

Sure, do as you wish. Post here, there...that's fine.

 

[WorldWatcher]

All that is somewhat confusing, but I think we may very well be confronted with exactly that sort of confusion with regard to the application of law in this case.

I pray this is not a violation of the rules, but I'm shifting the order of the quotes to the order I'd like to respond. If that is wrong if someone will let me know I'll be happy to move things around. There is not intent to change the meaning of the post.

First let me say this is an excellent post and raises some issues which I think will be raised in pretrail motions, preliiminary hearings, and (if it gets to trial) actually placed before the jury.

The real worm in the apple here may be the current Florida self defense statute; its wording would suggest that a use of deadly force is self defense, provided only that the defending party was not where he was unlawfully, did not commit an "unlawful act" prior to whatever "unlawful act" by the other party led to the use of deadly force, and that the force was used in "reasonable" fear of death, OR "serious bodily injury". To overcome "the preponderance of evidence" affirmation by the defendant, the state would thus have to show either that he (a) violated some Florida statute prior to the "unlawful act" of the other, or (b) that his fear of death or serious injury was not "reasonable" under the circumstances. The overall effect, as I interpret it, is to create a fairly low bar for the defense to clear to establish self defense; it appears in this case it would be sufficient simply to show no violation of Florida law in the incident, up to the use of deadly force, and that his fear of death or serious injury was reasonable, by the standard of common sense. A showing that the other party's conduct was a felony under statute, would be sufficient to establish the latter point, so it is entirely possible that the Florida statute on "aggravated battery" might also come into play; it's not hard to imagine the defense asserting it in this case.

The relevant Florida Statutes can be found here -->> - Chapter 776 - 2011 Florida Statutes - The Florida Senate

776.012 Use of force in defense of person
776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force
776.041 Use of force by aggressor​

776.012 provides that a person can use self-defense if the person reasonably believes it is called for to defend themselves (or another) against anothers use of unlawful force. A key being unlawful force. 776.032, which is the "Stand Your Ground" law, provides that someone who is executing self defense under the appropriate law (in this case 776.012) need not retreat and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil suit for doing that, except in cases where the force is used against a law enforcement officer. 776.041 however limits the use of the self defense provisions (776.012 and 776.032) if, I repeat, **IF** the individual is found to be the aggressor under certain circumstances. The self defense immunity does not apply if the individual is committing a forcible felony, it is also lost if the person is the aggressor and they failed to take advantage (as measured by a reasonable person) to escape such danger in the case of imminent danger or great bodily harm.

Now there is a couple of different ways the state could take this depending on the evidence they have accumulated that is not available to the public (such attempts may succeed for fail we don't know yet). That could include autopsy, forensic, GSR/stimpling evidence (or lack of) at the shot site on the body, unknown witness, etc. So they may try:

1. If Zimmerman acted as the aggressor and tried to illegally restrain Martin, then it can be argued that Zimmerman was performing an illegal felony (forcefully retraining another person is a felony violation of Florida Statute 782.02) and as a result was assaulting Martin which then makes it Aggravated Assault which is also a felony. Under Florida Statute 776.041 the aggressor does not have Self-defense/SYG as an affirmative defense if they were in the commission of a forceable felony.

2. A second way they could approach is to use Zimmerman's own dispacther call. Zimmerman indicated that he thought Martin made a threatening gesture with the "waistband" comment. They could argue that at that point a reasonable person would have followed police dispatcher directions not to follow an unknown person, at night, in the rain and argue that Martin had his own self-defense protections under SYG because he had an unknown person pursuing him and he had no requirement to retreat.​

Personally I think the prosecution will go with some variation of #2. However if they have any direct evidence that Zimmerman was the aggressor, assaulted Martin and/or attempted to illegally restrain him - then #1 becomes a very real possibility because once Zimmerman enters into committing a forceable felony - then self-defense is no longer on the table. (Well it may be on the table at the jury trial and up to the jury to decide but they may be arguments the state could use to nullify the "self defense" claim.)

Actually , CG, Save has a point here. Self defense is what is called an "affirmative defense", which simply means the burden of proof in asserting that defense is on the defendant; BUT, (and this is critical), the standard of proof required of the defendant is NOT "beyond a reasonable doubt", but simply the "preponderance of the evidence"; that is, if the greater weight of evidence favors the defendant's affirmative defense (however slightly), it must be presumed to be so; the burden on the defense is not to prove, but to simply tip the scale. This is not a trivial distinction. Further, the defense will have the opportunity, under this Florida statute, to present a motion for dismissal of the murder charge if it can show to the satisfaction of the judge presiding that the preponderance of the evidence indicates self defense. The judge may so find, and dismiss the case, or leave the finding to a jury.

I absolutley agree with the above, often in a "self defense" defense isn't about "proving" self defense it's about establishing self defense as a possibility. If self defense is shown to be a reasonable possibility based on a preponderance of the evidence then logic says the State has not made it's case such that it reaches the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard.

This is why I think the state will take a great deal of time examining the buildup to the actual event and establishing a highly detailed timeline and showing that Zimmerman disregarded the dispatcher's comment not to follow but not returning to the truck. The intent will be to show that Zimmerman does not qualify for a self defense defense by showing him as the aggressor and why he doesn't qualify.

We'll have to wait and see what evidence the state actually places on the table.


********************************


Sorry to be so verbose, I have a hard time keeping things short sometimes.


>>>>

 

[saveliberty]

This is the type of groundwork I was hoping to establish WorldWatcher. Trials are curious things. Attorneys can easily distract you from the questions you are really suppose to focus on. A reasonable person has to be able to say a reasonable outcome occurred in this trial.

A normal trail has the, did this person do this question at its heart.

This trial has, was this a reasonable action at its heart.

 

[Sunshine]

Jury selection is definitely a 'game.' Depending on the state each side gets to exclude a certain number of prospective jurors without explanation. After that the candidates have to under go Voir Dire: Voir dire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I have been called to jury duty twice and excused both times due to my job and the short staffing in my field. I wouldn't mind serving on a jury. A jury. Not this jury. The jobs I have had tend to cause me to want to stay out of the limelight...back here in my woods where no one can find me!

 

[WorldWatcher]

Jury selection is definitely a 'game.' Depending on the state each side gets to exclude a certain number of prospective jurors without explanation. After that the candidates have to under go Voir Dire: Voir dire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I have been called to jury duty twice and excused both times due to my job and the short staffing in my field. I wouldn't mind serving on a jury. A jury. Not this jury. The jobs I have had tend to cause me to want to stay out of the limelight...back here in my woods where no one can find me!

I was driving home the other day, a talking head on the fox news app was saying that juries for Murder 2 in Florida are 6 not 12. Is that correct?


>>>>

 

[Emma]

We are going to need another thread

and a bigger boat.

 

[saveliberty]

We are going to need another thread

and a bigger boat.

You just end up with bigger leaks.

 

[Sunshine]

Jury selection is definitely a 'game.' Depending on the state each side gets to exclude a certain number of prospective jurors without explanation. After that the candidates have to under go Voir Dire: Voir dire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I have been called to jury duty twice and excused both times due to my job and the short staffing in my field. I wouldn't mind serving on a jury. A jury. Not this jury. The jobs I have had tend to cause me to want to stay out of the limelight...back here in my woods where no one can find me!

I was driving home the other day, a talking head on the fox news app was saying that juries for Murder 2 in Florida are 6 not 12. Is that correct?


>>>>

Likely. I don't know Florida law, but many juries are not comprised of the 12 as most think.

 

[Si modo]

Jury selection is definitely a 'game.' Depending on the state each side gets to exclude a certain number of prospective jurors without explanation. After that the candidates have to under go Voir Dire: Voir dire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I have been called to jury duty twice and excused both times due to my job and the short staffing in my field. I wouldn't mind serving on a jury. A jury. Not this jury. The jobs I have had tend to cause me to want to stay out of the limelight...back here in my woods where no one can find me!

I was driving home the other day, a talking head on the fox news app was saying that juries for Murder 2 in Florida are 6 not 12. Is that correct?


>>>>

Likely. I don't know Florida law, but many juries are not comprised of the 12 as most think.

Well, we are mostly because we are mock and we want some good discussion.

 

[saveliberty]

We're going to have a dozen turtles? Cool!

Actually 13 are selected in a jury or seven in the case of a six person jury. All listen to the testimony and 12 are selected at the end to deliberate.