George Zimmerman Trial

**Haloti92** · 07-12-2013, 06:51 PM

Originally Posted by NCRAVEN

Maybe I reading too much into it. But I would think if the jury agreed (or at least all of them) they wouldn't be going home for the night.

Yeah, I think a hung jury is the best outcome possible for Zimmerman. I think if any jurors are persuaded to change their minds it will be from not guilty to guilty (of manslaughter), not the other way around. Then again, perhaps a smaller 'compromise' is to acquit, but not to do it very quickly, so as to make it appear the decision was extra close call. I can see how people would more angry with a quick decision than with a prolonged, apparently "close" one.

That said, I think the chances of a hung jury are substantial.

**HoustonRaven** · 07-12-2013, 07:12 PM

The best outcome for Zimmerman is acquittal. Not even close.

If the jury is hung, he can be retried.

**NCRAVEN** · 07-12-2013, 07:36 PM

What do you think they would retry hi with? Negligent homicide?

**HoustonRaven** · 07-12-2013, 07:43 PM

Murder or manslaughter.

Double Jeopardy doesn't apply on a hung jury.

**Haloti92** · 07-12-2013, 07:58 PM

Originally Posted by HoustonRaven

The best outcome for Zimmerman is acquittal. Not even close.

If the jury is hung, he can be retried.

I didn't mean to say I thought a hung jury was a better result for Zimmerman than an acquittal (obviously acquittal is what they want). I meant to say that I think a massive majority of the 100% total odds are comprised of hung jury and conviction (manslaughter). And of those two, a hung jury is obviously better. I feel this way due to the fact they retired for the day at 6:00 pm indicating they were nowhere close to a possible consensus. And the facts seem pretty straightforward, making it likely that any disagreements will be over personally subjective interpretations/biases, not correctable mistakes about confirmable details.

There is obviously at least one juror who is not buying the 'self-defense' defense or we would have had an acquittal after a short time or they might have deliberated longer into the evening. Whether the other jurors can convince her/them, I have my doubts.

I also think there could easily be one or more similarly currently-intractable jurors who think the 'self-defense' defense is valid (not disproven beyond a reasonable doubt). Whether the other jurors can convince her/them of a guilty verdict, I have some, but less, doubt.

The longer it goes, I think the more likely a 'not guilty' gets pressured into a 'guilty', rather than the reverse, assuming any pressuring/convincing is done at all. And it is such a case where I can see a stubborn juror on either side refusing to yield.

**NCRAVEN** · 07-12-2013, 08:16 PM

Originally Posted by HoustonRaven

Murder or manslaughter.

Double Jeopardy doesn't apply on a hung jury.

Maybe, but if it were e I wouldn't try for something I already couldn't prove once.

**HoustonRaven** · 07-12-2013, 08:32 PM

Originally Posted by NCRAVEN

Maybe, but if it were e I wouldn't try for something I already couldn't prove once.

It's a tough decision. There's so much pressure on this case though I bet they'd put on another trial.

**NCRAVEN** · 07-12-2013, 08:37 PM

Originally Posted by Haloti92

I didn't mean to say I thought a hung jury was a better result for Zimmerman than an acquittal (obviously acquittal is what they want). I meant to say that I think a massive majority of the 100% total odds are comprised of hung jury and conviction (manslaughter). And of those two, a hung jury is obviously better. I feel this way due to the fact they retired for the day at 6:00 pm indicating they were nowhere close to a possible consensus. And the facts seem pretty straightforward, making it likely that any disagreements will be over personally subjective interpretations/biases, not correctable mistakes about confirmable details.

There is obviously at least one juror who is not buying the 'self-defense' defense or we would have had an acquittal after a short time or they might have deliberated longer into the evening. Whether the other jurors can convince her/them, I have my doubts.

I also think there could easily be one or more similarly currently-intractable jurors who think the 'self-defense' defense is valid (not disproven beyond a reasonable doubt). Whether the other jurors can convince her/them of a guilty verdict, I have some, but less, doubt.

The longer it goes, I think the more likely a 'not guilty' gets pressured into a 'guilty', rather than the reverse, assuming any pressuring/convincing is done at all. And it is such a case where I can see a stubborn juror on either side refusing to yield.

It could also be split down the middle or 4 -2 which may be more likely if the left for the night. My guess though is it is down to one person one way or the other.

**Haloti92** · 07-12-2013, 08:47 PM

Originally Posted by NCRAVEN

It could also be split down the middle or 4 -2 which may be more likely if the left for the night. My guess though is it is down to one person one way or the other.

The problem is that the case does not have a lot of specific evidence. A lot of it is subject to interpretation or deciding who is more believable in terms of testimony. And of course there is the totally subjective judgment call as to what is "reasonable" in terms of fearing great bodily harm or death in the fight that occurred (and a fight that is subject to different interpretations, i.e. no clear, indisputable, evidence how it went down, video tape, multiple corroborating good eyewitnesses, etc.).

Which means....that people's pre-conceived biases absolutely will come into play on the jury. It is impossible to avoid as they are human. And in a case where almost every piece of evidence and every relevant decision can vary depending on human bias, I can easily see differing judgments, and not just that, but differing and impossible-to-change judgments.

I mean the easiest way to consider this is to look at any chat room or message board on the case. I would venture to say that less than 0.1% of people weighing in on the case have been convinced by argument of evidence to change their stance. Like JAB for example, a totally reasonable guy who would vote guilty, and despite our discussions on evidence/law, he hasn't changed his mind; nor have we changed our minds despite his arguments. The jury is made up of people just like the people you see arguing in chat rooms and message boards; people just like us. Humanly biased (redundant), and unlikely to be swayed based on the relatively subjective evidence or argument.

**AirFlacco** · 07-12-2013, 08:51 PM

Originally Posted by JohnBKistler

As I know is that the media has successfully elevated this trial to a national event.

A lot of people in my area are invested emotionally.

If the verdict doesn't go a certain way, I expect to see some rioting.

It seems that a manslaughter conviction will be enough for the
demonstrators as long as he does time.

As far as taking it to a national level, it has gone straight to the top
with OBY speaking about it and even Romney and Santorum.

**AirFlacco** · 07-12-2013, 08:52 PM

Anyone want to start a poll on how long the jury takes?

**Haloti92** · 07-12-2013, 08:54 PM

Originally Posted by AirFlacco

It seems that a manslaughter conviction will be enough for the
demonstrators as long as he does time.

As far as taking it to a national level, it has gone straight to the top
with OBY speaking about it and even Romney and Santorum.

I think the manslaughter charge with a firearm involved is potentially almost as serious as the 2nd degree murder charge. If he gets convicted at all, he will do some serious time, imo.