Posters for the jury

[Si modo]

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.

We also have four or five alternates. I'm OK with that.

Not everyone will accept so we will still have enough, but only 12 will vote.

 

[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.

We also have four or five alternates. I'm OK with that.

Not everyone will accept so we will still have enough, but only 12 will vote.

Though it is probably done differently in many places, at the trial I served on, the person who was the alternate was choosen just before the deliberations by random choice. That was so all of us would listen to the case all the way through. None of us knew who might have to be in the jury room.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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?


>>>>

Civil cases are 6 everything else is 12 I think

 

[The Gadfly]

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.


>>>>

That's quite OK, WW; I think this discussion is laying some very useful groundwork on points of law which will help us understand what's going on with this case as it moves forward. I expect e we are going to have at least one preliminary hearing, and several pretrial motions put forward on both sides, and some of this will be grist for those particular mills. I think you've analyzed the state's potential strategy well. Absent some evidence for the first possibility you outlined, the state will most likely try to build a circumstantial case emphasizing Zimmerman's state of mind, and how each of his actions must have logically flowed from the previous one, in building the state's theory of the case. That could be a difficult challenge, based on what we know at present but could be doable, all depending on what actual admissible evidence is available. Their questioning is going to have to be very methodical, but very carefully worded, lest an answer be stricken because it "calls for speculation".Timelines will be a crucial element, one would think, since all the important action takes place in a short time frame ( from 19:13:22 local time, when Zimmerman exited the vehicle, to 19:17 when the first officer arrived on scene). Assuming all the timelines we've had revealed are both accurate and in sync, this period starts right after Zimmerman loses visual contact with Martin, and approximately 1 minute into Martin's phone conversation with his girlfriend. Zimmerman's phone call to the dispatcher ends some 2 minutes later,between 19:15:19 and 19:15:22. Cell phone records round up the call duration to the next whole minute, so assuming the time is in sync, a call that came in at 19:12:00 would have to end no later than 19:16:00. It follows that the initial physical contact between the two parties thus had to occur during the 38 seconds between 19:15:22 and 19:16:00, when Martin's cell phone call had to have ended. Again, there's nothing we yet know to establish exactly what the positions of the two parties were when that time starts, or what movements by each brought them together somewhere very close to point F in the diagram, where the altercation (whatever it was) and the shooting took place. All we know as of now is that it was over when the first officer arrived no more than 1:38 seconds after the end of Zimmerman's call to the dispatcher (according to the dispatch log). That leaves the state a timeline to build for that 1:38, but it also leaves a timeline to be built for the immediate two minutes preceding . It is possible to know where Zimmerman was at the beginning of that, and it should be possible to show where Martin would have passed out of Zimmerman's line of sight. What's not possible from what we know now, is to determine with reasonable certainty exactly which path each took from there. The state will have to offer up something to fill in that blank timeline. It will be interesting to see how they approach that.

The defense will have to offer its own theory and timeline for those missing moments, and what path each party took. Those two theories will have to diverge at some point, and which one is the more credible may well decide the case.

I have one question as to statute; does anyone know, under Florida law, at what point assault becomes "aggravated battery" or the Florida equivalent (i.e. a felony)? I expect the defense may claim that Martin committed that offense upon Zimmerman.

 

[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 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.


>>>>

That's quite OK, WW; I think this discussion is laying some very useful groundwork on points of law which will help us understand what's going on with this case as it moves forward. I expect e we are going to have at least one preliminary hearing, and several pretrial motions put forward on both sides, and some of this will be grist for those particular mills. I think you've analyzed the state's potential strategy well. Absent some evidence for the first possibility you outlined, the state will most likely try to build a circumstantial case emphasizing Zimmerman's state of mind, and how each of his actions must have logically flowed from the previous one, in building the state's theory of the case. That could be a difficult challenge, based on what we know at present but could be doable, all depending on what actual admissible evidence is available. Their questioning is going to have to be very methodical, but very carefully worded, lest an answer be stricken because it "calls for speculation".Timelines will be a crucial element, one would think, since all the important action takes place in a short time frame ( from 19:13:22 local time, when Zimmerman exited the vehicle, to 19:17 when the first officer arrived on scene). Assuming all the timelines we've had revealed are both accurate and in sync, this period starts right after Zimmerman loses visual contact with Martin, and approximately 1 minute into Martin's phone conversation with his girlfriend. Zimmerman's phone call to the dispatcher ends some 2 minutes later,between 19:15:19 and 19:15:22. Cell phone records round up the call duration to the next whole minute, so assuming the time is in sync, a call that came in at 19:12:00 would have to end no later than 19:16:00. It follows that the initial physical contact between the two parties thus had to occur during the 38 seconds between 19:15:22 and 19:16:00, when Martin's cell phone call had to have ended. Again, there's nothing we yet know to establish exactly what the positions of the two parties were when that time starts, or what movements by each brought them together somewhere very close to point F in the diagram, where the altercation (whatever it was) and the shooting took place. All we know as of now is that it was over when the first officer arrived no more than 1:38 seconds after the end of Zimmerman's call to the dispatcher (according to the dispatch log). That leaves the state a timeline to build for that 1:38, but it also leaves a timeline to be built for the immediate two minutes preceding . It is possible to know where Zimmerman was at the beginning of that, and it should be possible to show where Martin would have passed out of Zimmerman's line of sight. What's not possible from what we know now, is to determine with reasonable certainty exactly which path each took from there. The state will have to offer up something to fill in that blank timeline. It will be interesting to see how they approach that.

The defense will have to offer its own theory and timeline for those missing moments, and what path each party took. Those two theories will have to diverge at some point, and which one is the more credible may well decide the case.

I have one question as to statute; does anyone know, under Florida law, at what point assault becomes "aggravated battery" or the Florida equivalent (i.e. a felony)? I expect the defense may claim that Martin committed that offense upon Zimmerman.

Very interesting, if you don't mind I'll sleep on this one and take another look tomorrow.

What will be interesting (to me) will ultimately be examining the statement by Zimmerman from the night of the incident and the walk-through the next day that I have heard occurred and syncing it with the time-lines.

Phone Records in general: I believe that the various phone services will be able to provide more exact start, end, and duration times then what has seen based on billing information.

But for eample, the dispatcher call and phone records show :

Dispatcher Call ~~ 19:11
Girlfriend Inbound Call ~~ 19:12
Zimmerman Exits Truck ~~ + 2 minutes 10 seconds
Zimmerman Acknowledges Dispatcher Instruction Not To Follow ~~ +2 minutes 28 seconds
Dispatcher Call Ends ~~ 19:15
Girlfriend Call Ends ~~ 19:16​

Examining the recording, the time from exiting the truck to acknowledging the dispatcher instructions was 18 seconds.

Some claim Zimmerman was returning to his truck at the point he acknowledges the dispatcher with "OK", that would have occurred at approximately time 19:13:28. The girlfriends call ended at approximately 19:16 based on phone records (call time + duration). The difference is approximately 2 minutes 30 seconds to return to the truck, when traveling away from the truck for 18 seconds. **If** Zimmerman's statement that night indicate he was returning to the truck after "OK", then that appears to be a factual inconsistency, on the other hand if he says he continued to search, then that would be consistent in terms of time.

In addition, syncing the dispatcher call to the girlfriends call you get the dispatcher call at 19:11, the inbound girlfriends call at 19:12. At timestamp 1:05 of the dispatcher call we have Zimmerman saying that Martin was implying a threatening move by reaching into his waistband. In actuality we now know that correlates to the time of the inbound call so it wasn't a threatening gesture (reaching into waistband), it was Martin reaching (probably) into a pants pocket or hoodie pocket for the phone (unless the collection of Martins clothes show a waistband cell phone holster which (opinion here) most younger people forgo as they are not "cool").


>>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

I have one question as to statute; does anyone know, under Florida law, at what point assault becomes "aggravated battery" or the Florida equivalent (i.e. a felony)? I expect the defense may claim that Martin committed that offense upon Zimmerman.

- 2011 Florida Statutes - The Florida Senate


The above link will take you to the Florida Statutes on Crimes. Pretty well organized and linked, you won't have to blow through long section of text:

• Chapter 776 Use of Force
• Chapter 782 Homicide
• Chapter 784 Kidnapping; False Imprisonment

Simple assault is a misdemeanor as is simple battery, the difference between the two is that in assault there is an intent to do harm, in a battery the degree of harm must have actually occurred. (Which is why when you hear about someone being injured it's referred to as "assault and battery" because there was both the intent and the result.)

However simple Assault (784.011) - a misdemeanor - can be raised to Aggravated Assault (784.021) - a felony - if simple assault is combined with a felony. For example False Imprisonment (787.02) is a felony. False imprisonment would apply to unlawful detention. Combine False Imprisonment (felony) with simple Assault (Misdemeanor) you now have Aggrivated Assault (felony) which is defined as a Forcbile Felony (776.08) and factors into the Use of Force statutes for self defense.


>>>>

 

[The Gadfly]

Great link, WW. I expect that will be quite useful, going forward. I too, am curious to see how Zimmerman's statement(s) and the re-enactment of the shooting sync with the timeline; even if it's not definitive, it should give us more answers than we now have. Hopefully we'll have more precise times for the start and end of Martin's cell phone call with his girlfriend; that would be extremely helpful, if offered. You know, there's one thing I haven't heard mentioned, which may be of some real importance; I wonder if each of the two parties is right-handed, or left-handed. I'm not going to say just now why I think that might matter, just that I think it may. We'll see if either side introduces evidence on that.

Subject to getting the rest of the "jury" and alternates confirmed, I think that's about all we can do, pending preliminary hearings/motions in the case. Your link should give us easy reference to all the relevant statutes; pending the actual evidence, that should be all we need for the time being.

 

[LockeJaw]

So are we still doing the mock jury or not? Just wondering...

 

[The Gadfly]

So are we still doing the mock jury or not? Just wondering...

I would assume we are, if the case goes to trial.

 

[saveliberty]

...or doesn't end in a plea deal.

 

[Jackson]

If I were on the jury, I would want to know just what the role of a Neighborhood Watch person is supposed to be. When Zimmerman signed up to be this Watch person, was he supposed to follow suspicious persons? Or just report them?

My experience with Neighborhood persons was that they had a sign in their window and children knew it was a "safe house" to go to if they were lost or troubled. I never thought they roamed the neighborhood looking for suspicious people, especially armed. Is there a written protocol for their role?

 

[Liability]

Disband the jury.

There is not going to be a trial.

That's right. I just made a prediction.

And no, I'm not suggesting a "plea deal," either.

As my second prediction, I offer this:

The case is going to end up getting tossed before any plea deal and well before any need for a trial.

 

[saveliberty]

Anything seems possible at this point Liability. Sounded like the trial was going to be about a year from now though, so that is less likely than other outcomes.

 

[earlycuyler]

Well, no way I can make the list. As far as I am concerned, Zimmerman is at least guilty of manslaughter. Had he not been packing, had he not gotten out of the vehicle, had he not confronted Martin, the kid would be alive today. As a gun owner, this kind of action endangers my Second Amendment rights. For if we let people like Zimmerman get away with murder, society as a whole may decide that having armed citizens who can get away with murder is just to dangerous for the rest of us.

Not to mention other peoples right to CCW. Zimmerman is now a the poster child depicting who should not be allowed to carry and what not to do on neighborhood watch. As for the trial, I dint know that they will let much info out. Looking at the news, it looks like it fizzled some and this is good. It could be years until this is resolved.

 

[Ravi]

Think you could make it until the court date?

Dammit! There goes my plan to start a thread about the media's dishonest reporting of this case. I had a list and everything! Shit.

No hold on to that! You can use it to try and sway the hard heads like Ravi.

This post of yours proves that you are not as impartial as you pretend.

As to being on the jury, I was once on one and was 99.9% sure the perp was guilty but since the evidence was nothing more than he said/she said I had to vote to not convict. Reasonable doubt is a big thing.

 

[MeBelle]

bumpy for fun!

 

[tinydancer]

If I were on the jury, I would want to know just what the role of a Neighborhood Watch person is supposed to be. When Zimmerman signed up to be this Watch person, was he supposed to follow suspicious persons? Or just report them?

My experience with Neighborhood persons was that they had a sign in their window and children knew it was a "safe house" to go to if they were lost or troubled. I never thought they roamed the neighborhood looking for suspicious people, especially armed. Is there a written protocol for their role?

Oh you are thinking Block Parent signs that you find in peoples windows.

Because with Neighborhood Watch you patrol. And you stay very visible and usually you patrol in teams of two. And yes you "roam" If you are a well organized team you have certain territories divided up appropriately and you have shifts.

But you must remember, Zimmerman was not on patrol that night. He was on an errand when he came across Trayvon.

 

[25Caliber]

Dammit! There goes my plan to start a thread about the media's dishonest reporting of this case. I had a list and everything! Shit.

No hold on to that! You can use it to try and sway the hard heads like Ravi.

This post of yours proves that you are not as impartial as you pretend.

As to being on the jury, I was once on one and was 99.9% sure the perp was guilty but since the evidence was nothing more than he said/she said I had to vote to not convict. Reasonable doubt is a big thing.

LOL...isnt that beyond a reasonable doubt?....was only he said/she said how could you be 99.9 percent sure of guilt...if the evidence presented caused that certainty (and frankly what else could have?) then you voted wrong.

 

[George Costanza]

Funny - no one has mentioned the possibility of jury nullification yet on this thread.

I don't think I've ever really understood what that is.

Could you please explain?

Si, jury nullification is the concept of a jury, having been charged as to the law in a case, deciding that the application of the law to the facts of the case would be an injustice, and rendering a verdict that is contrary to what the law says, thus "nullifying" the law in that case. I'm not sure I see how George theorizes that could happen here, but perhaps he will enlighten us further.

I was being facetious. So many folks here think that "jury nullification" is the answer to just about anything having to do with a criminal trial. I was merely wondering where those folks were on this thread. Of course jury nullification would not be appropriate to even consider here. That usually doesn't stop the JN proponents from hawking their wares.

Nothing more to see here, folks . . . move along now.

(Apologies for not responding sooner, BTW - I have been otherwise engaged.)

 

[George Costanza]

I don't think I've ever really understood what that is.

Could you please explain?

Si, jury nullification is the concept of a jury, having been charged as to the law in a case, deciding that the application of the law to the facts of the case would be an injustice, and rendering a verdict that is contrary to what the law says, thus "nullifying" the law in that case. I'm not sure I see how George theorizes that could happen here, but perhaps he will enlighten us further.

I was being facetious. So many folks here think that "jury nullification" is the answer to just about anything having to do with a criminal trial. I was merely wondering where those folks were on this thread. Of course jury nullification would not be appropriate to even consider here. That usually doesn't stop the JN proponents from hawking their wares.

Nothing more to see here, folks . . . move along now, OK?

(Apologies for not responding sooner, BTW - I have been otherwise engaged.)

Just a little test here.