George Zimmerman Trial

[HoustonRaven]

He is going to get convicted of manslaughter. It is a split-the-difference cop-out that the jurors will have much incentive to take.

Sure, it won't be a good application of the law, but when has that ever stopped juries in such politically charged cases? Who wants a race riot? Who wants to be accused of being a racist after the identity of the jurors become known? Better just avoid that, right?

It may happen that way but I wouldn't take odds on it.

For one, the jury has no clue about all the riot stuff going on. Second, the jury knew going into it the case had racial undertones. I don't think that's going to sway opinion now at the end of the trial.

The fact that it's six jurors as opposed to the standard twelve makes a conviction more likely, it still only takes one to throw this all away and I think the defense has mustered up enough doubt, from the prosecutions on star witnesses I might add, to get acquittal.

[Haloti92]

The jurors don't know any of that is going on now.

To me, assuming the jurors don't make some political decision, I don't see how if you find him not guilty of murder you can find him guilty of manslaughter. The only thing I think the prosecution may have been able to get (considering a competent jury) is negligent homicide.

I think the jurors know exactly what is going on.

It was the situation before the trial even began. Heck it was the situation before Zimmerman was even arrested (was essentially the cause of his arrest and the 2nd degree murder charge). And the cameras and crowds in and around the courthouse confirm this is one of the 24/7 cable news channel cases.

That said, I am not saying I think the odds are 100% they will convict on manslaughter. But whereas with 2nd degree murder or acquittal as the only choices, I was leaning towards a low likelihood of conviction, now, with manslaughter as a "middle-ground", "compromise" verdict, I can see that conviction being delivered with around 55%-65% odds.

As for how it is easier to find for manslaughter as opposed to murder (disregarding politics), it is that the former does not require any proof of a "depraved mind" or malice. It is this hurdle that the prosecution has made absolutely no headway in clearing. None at all. And they have tried and tried to the point where their desperation has ruined their cause.

[Haloti92]

It may happen that way but I wouldn't take odds on it.

For one, the jury has no clue about all the riot stuff going on. Second, the jury knew going into it the case had racial undertones. I don't think that's going to sway opinion now at the end of the trial.

The fact that it's six jurors as opposed to the standard twelve makes a conviction more likely, it still only takes one to throw this all away and I think the defense has mustered up enough doubt, from the prosecutions on star witnesses I might add, to get acquittal.

I disagree about the jurors knowledge of the situation on the ground. As you say, this case has been racially charged from Day 1. One does not need explicit threats of riots to come to the conclusion that the "wrong" verdict could or will lead to them. It is a pretty easy extrapolation based on history and the state of our society.

And it isn't just riots that the jurors could be worried about. I would argue their personal reputation/safety, especially in the social media driven world, would be a bigger influence on their decision to give out a "safe," cop-out, middle ground conviction (of manslaughter).

But as you say, it only takes one juror with a backbone or integrity to eliminate the chances of a politically-motivated decision. So who knows what will happen.

[HoustonRaven]

I disagree about the jurors knowledge of the situation on the ground. As you say, this case has been racially charged from Day 1. One does not need explicit threats of riots to come to the conclusion that the "wrong" verdict could or will lead to them. It is a pretty easy extrapolation based on history and the state of our society.

Outside of Rodney King, which occurred over 20 years ago, I cannot come up with another high profile court verdict that led to rioting. Unless I am totally missing something, I don't see this "easy extrapolation based on history" of which you speak.

And it isn't just riots that the jurors could be worried about. I would argue their personal reputation/safety, especially in the social media driven world, would be a bigger influence on their decision to give out a "safe," cop-out, middle ground conviction (of manslaughter).

Which they freely knew about prior to the trial. If they were so concerned with it, they could have simply got out of jury duty.

[Haloti92]

Outside of Rodney King, which occurred over 20 years ago, I cannot come up with another high profile court verdict that led to rioting. Unless I am totally missing something, I don't see this "easy extrapolation based on history" of which you speak.

It is the only case that remotely applies. Why are we even talking about the potential for riots if it is not easy to extrapolate their possibility? Google "blacks, riot, Zimmerman," there is much talk about the possibility. Obviously there are those that think it won't happen and to suggest it will is racist, etc. And there are those that think it will/might happen. But the point is, the possibility is being discussed because of history and the current racially hyper-charged society. I have no idea if an acquittal will actually lead to riots. I am sure there will be protests, but riots are a different matter.

Which they freely knew about prior to the trial. If they were so concerned with it, they could have simply got out of jury duty.

How exactly? By stating "I fear that black people and the racially-obsessed MSM will vilify me if I acquit, so I would like to be excused?" Seems like a stretch to expect people to verbalize that. In addition, there was no middle-ground, compromise charge/verdict available at the time of jury selection. I already said I thought the odds of a 2nd degree murder conviction was small. There is nowhere near enough evidence for that. And as such, it would be much easier to "justify" an acquittal on such a charge. But the prosecution and judge, by asking and allowing for this middle ground verdict, is basically saying, "here is an easier way" to express the general PC feeling that Zimmerman did something wrong, even if not murder. I think there is a good chance some jurors will choose to take it.

[HoustonRaven]

It is the only case that remotely applies. Why are we even talking about the potential for riots if it is not easy to extrapolate their possibility? Google "blacks, riot, Zimmerman," there is much talk about the possibility. Obviously there are those that think it won't happen and to suggest it will is racist, etc. And there are those that think it will/might happen. But the point is, the possibility is being discussed because of history and the current racially hyper-charged society. I have no idea if an acquittal will actually lead to riots. I am sure there will be protests, but riots are a different matter.

Fine. But that's not what you originally said.

How exactly? By stating "I fear that black people and the racially-obsessed MSM will vilify me if I acquit, so I would like to be excused?" Seems like a stretch to expect people to verbalize that.

Of course nobody is going to say *that*. But people get out of jury duty everyday, all day long. All you have to say is it's a hardship for you and you're gone.

In addition, there was no middle-ground, compromise, charge/verdict available at the time of jury selection. I already said I thought the odds of a 2nd degree murder conviction was small. And as such, it would be much easier to "justify" an acquittal of such a charge. The prosecution and judge, by asking and allowing for this middle ground verdict, is basically saying, "here is an easier way" to express the general PC feeling that Zimmerman did something wrong, even if not murder.

Easier perhaps. I just don't think it increases it's likelihood all that much, especially when the jury is explained the concept of self defense.

[JAB1985]

It is the only case that remotely applies.

may I add the case of Oscar Grant...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_640468.html

[Haloti92]

Fine. But that's not what you originally said.

It is basically what I said, and it is what I meant. The jurors are aware an acquittal will lead to black unrest. Protests, riots, three-weeks of panels on MSNBC vilifying the jurors/verdict, etc. It is all the same in terms of my argument. More people are more worked up for a longer amount of time on an acquittal in a case where the victim looks like the son Obama never had (and the accused does not)

Of course nobody is going to say *that*. But people get out of jury duty everyday, all day long. All you have to say is it's a hardship for you and you're gone.

Not sure it is as easy as you say. It certainly requires lying for the average person. Here are the rules for Florida:

http://floridajuryduty.com/were-you-...-questions.php

Easier perhaps. I just don't think it increases it's likelihood all that much, especially when the jury is explained the concept of self defense.

Well, like I said, I am considering extra-legal reasons why the jury might convict for the lesser charge. If we assume the jurors will follow the law correctly then I don't set the odds as high. Obviously in terms of the law, the self-defense applies to both charges. If a juror feels those requirements (for the defendant) are met, the difference in charges doesn't matter.

But even if we ignore extra-legal influences on the jurors the odds might still creep up a bit because before the middle-ground charges were possible, a juror could have concluded that the 'self-defense' defense was not real strong but the lack of "depraved mind" or malice warranted an acquittal (of the 2nd degree murder charge). There may not be any jurors in this category, but if so, the new verdict options might change their verdict.

We'll see what happens. In any event, I am curious where exactly would you set the odds for a conviction on one of the in-between charges?

[HoustonRaven]

Not sure it is as easy as you say. It certainly requires lying for the average person. Here are the rules for Florida:

http://floridajuryduty.com/were-you-...-questions.php

Go to your local court and sit in on any of the dozens of voir dire's that occur every day. People get out of jury duty all the time.

We'll see what happens. In any event, I am curious where exactly would you set the odds for a conviction on one of the in-between charges?

Total stab in the dark .... 15% chance he's found guilty on Murder 2, 35% chance on Manslaughter

[HoustonRaven]

Very strange thing just happened in court ....

During their closing argument, the prosecution just threw their star witness under a huge bus. They basically characterized Rachel Jeantel as a moron.

[NCRAVEN]

Very strange thing just happened in court ....

During their closing argument, the prosecution just threw their star witness under a huge bus. They basically characterized Rachel Jeantel as a moron.

I saw that. This is a pretty poor closing , IMO.

[NCRAVEN]

This closing is HORRIBLE. The Prosecutor is trying to use testimoney of the women who said she saw Zimmerman on top when the shot was fired.
:grbac: