• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • My Social Media
  • About
    • About Mark Draughn
    • Testimonials
    • Other Authors
      • About Gary Olson
      • About Ken Gibson
      • About Joel Rosenberg
    • Disclosures
    • Terms and Conditions

Windypundit

Classical liberalism, criminal laws, the war on drugs, economics, free speech, technology, photography, sex work, cats, and whatever else comes to mind.

Horrors of the Zimmerman Jury

July 22, 2013 By Mark Draughn 3 Comments

Nathaniel Downes at the highly liberal Addicting Info thinks he’s found shocking evidence of jury tampering in the Zimmerman trial:

The image of a murder trial jury often times gives the image from 12 Angry Men, a group holed up, cut off from contact from the outside world, with the weight of life or death hanging over their heads as they decide the fate of the person on trial. However, in the case of the Zimmerman trial, the revelations are of steak dinners, fancy pedicures and trips to local museums, all on the taxpayer dime.

Florida jury service pays $30 per day (or less). Even if the jurors only work 6 hours per day, they’re earning less than minimum wage. But the Zimmerman jury was sequestered, meaning that they are essentially unable to leave and go home when they’re “not working.” I’m pretty sure a liberal/progressive site like Addicting Info wouldn’t accept that hourly wage or those working conditions from any other employer.

Yet when the State of Florida tries to show the jurors a little courtesy, and provides them with room-and-board and some entertainment, Downes calls it “pampering”:

The decision to pamper the jury was undertaken for a myriad of reasons. As one Florida attorney, Randy Reep, pointed out:

These women of course are not criminals, yet we took them from their families. While we did not say this then, now it is clear, half of the country is going to very vocally find fault with your dedicated effort. A Bloomin Onion at Outback would not adequately reimburse these women for the bitterness [some will level at them for their jury service.]

In a statement by the Sheriff’s office, this was elaborated upon:

Jurors watched television and movies, exercised at the hotel fitness center, and spent weekends being visited by family and friends.

Hold on a second. The Sheriff’s office did not take them away from their families, they had access to them over the weekend!

That the Sheriff’s office says they had access over the weekend implies that they did not have access to their families during the week. In other words, the court “took them from their families” for five days at a time. That’s still a bit of a hardship for a lot of people. I don’t know why Downes has trouble understanding this, but instead of seeing this as the court trying to offer some courtesy to the jurors, Downes imagines something sinister:

However, they were carefully monitored to prevent jury tampering at least, right? To verify this statement, AI’s own Dr. Mark Bear contacted them, telling us:

Just verified with Heather Smith, from the Seminole Country Sheriff’s Office at 407-474-6259. She states, “Generally speaking, jurors serving on the Zimmerman trial were afforded two hours of visiting privileges with family of friends each weekend.” I asked what she meant by generally speaking,” and she states, “there were more opportunities afforded jurors but not all took advantage.”

So, these visits were unsupervised.

Right. Because jurors aren’t criminals. They weren’t accused of child abuse or domestic violence. Of course they were allowed to visit with their families without having court deputies present.

WFTV has dug into these visits, and what they found calls into question the verdict. As WFTV’s legal analyst, Bill Sheaffer, points out:

It only takes two seconds for an inappropriate comment to be made to a juror by a family member inadvertently or otherwise to possibly affect the verdict, how they look at the case.

Well, sure, that sort of thing is always possible in a jury trial. If the jurors are allowed contact with other people, those people could say something to them about the case. But that’s true of every jury trial, yet it’s fairly rare for a court to sequester the jury. It’s usually done to protect jurors’ privacy and to keep them from seeing media coverage or being mobbed by activists and protesters, not to deny them access to close family members.

In most cases, jury duty is like any other job: You show up on time in the morning, take a break for lunch, then when the trial is done for the day you go home, hang out with your friends and family, and get a good night’s sleep so you can return to the court bright and early the next morning.

Contrary to what Downes is implying, the unusual thing about the Zimmerman jury is not that jurors had access to their families, but that their access to their families was so severely limited.

And, it turns out, there is evidence to find that jury tampering did happen, as Juror B37 discussed in her aborted book deal:

The potential book was always intended to be a respectful observation of the trial from my and my husband’s perspectives…

Her husband holding a perspective strong enough to write a book on the subject, given unsupervised access during the trial to his wife on the jury.

What the heck does “her husband holding a perspective strong enough to write a book on the subject” even mean? It’s not her husband’s book — who’d want to buy that? He’s just helping her, and she wants to include his thoughts on the case. Why? I don’t know, but maybe it has something to do with the fact that her husband is a lawyer. He could probably help her out a with some of the legal stuff, wouldn’t you think?

If you’re not yet convinced that Downes is deranged, consider that in the sentence immediately before the one he quotes, juror B37 explains her decision not to write the book:

I realize it was necessary for our jury to be sequestered in order to protest our verdict from unfair outside influence, but that isolation shielded me from the depth of pain that exists among the general public over every aspect of this case.

In other words, despite the regular unsupervised meetings with her husband, she had no idea of the level of controversy raging in the media about the trial. That would make sense if she and her husband were avoiding talking about the case.

But we’re supposed to believe they must have discussed the case because…why? Just because she decided to write a book about it? That crap pisses me off. I was a juror in a criminal trial a few years ago, and after it was over, you know what I did? I wrote about it. I posted a series of blog posts about my experience as a juror just because I thought people might want to know what it was like. I even knew before the trial that I would probably blog about it afterwards. I have trouble seeing how juror B37’s book deal was any different, other than being more work and paying better.

(If I’m ever picked for another criminal trial, I’m not sure I’d blog about it again, especially if it were a bigger case. After writing all that, I felt a little too exposed. And people are more internet savvy these days, so there’s a bigger chance of a run-in with someone involved in the trial. As it is, one of the prosecutors stumbled across my account of the trial and recognized it, even though I had changed the names of people and locations. We’re Facebook friends now.)

Look, I don’t know if the jury reached the right decision given the evidence presented to them (although a lot of criminal lawyers seem to think the state’s case was weak), and I certainly have no way of knowing if juror B37 or her husband did something wrong. But if she did, Downes hasn’t presented a bit of real evidence to prove it. Such evidence may emerge someday, but he hasn’t got a thing right now.

(Hat tip: Steve Marmel, who would probably disagree with everything I wrote.)

Related

Share This Post

Filed Under: Legal

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. Mad Jack says

    July 23, 2013 at 5:33 pm

    Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you God?

    I do.

    When I testify under oath the judge, jury, both attorneys and the peanut gallery must accept my testimony as the truth as I know it.

    Now some demented moonbat somewhere is going to bark at the moon and claim that clearly, the jury has been tampered with because of unsupervised visits? Bite me, they have not.

    The thing that bothers me is this: Back in 1973 when abortion became legal, I thought that the abortion protesters could all just pack up and go home. They’d lost, right? Abortion was legal, right?

    I was a bit naive back then.

    This whole Zimmerman-Martin case is taking on the momentum, look and feel of the abortion law. While there have been a few microscopic protests, the dust should have settled by this time. Not so. The commercial media keeps digging the damned case up and running it into the ground again, and now they’re getting fuel from the lunatic left.

    Why don’t they just pack up and go home?

    Reply

Trackbacks

  1. An acquittal unlike any other | a public defender says:
    July 23, 2013 at 6:18 am

    […] leave the debunking in depth to the Windypundit, but the gist is that the jurors in the Zimmerman trial did not, in fact, look anything like the 12 […]

    Reply
  2. Protests Are Not For the Police - Windypundit says:
    May 29, 2015 at 12:41 am

    […] at muddled thinking on the left, so I thought I’d try to balance things out. I often grab my craziest liberal nonsense from Addicting Info, and now I needed to find a similarly addled site for right-wing content. […]

    Reply

Leave a ReplyCancel reply

Primary Sidebar

Search

Recent Posts

  • Yes, It’s a Bribe
  • Talking to my fellow libertarians about DOGE
  • Late night thoughts on the current crisis
  • Joining The Cult
  • Trump’s dumb attempt to define sex
  • Some advice for my transgender readers in the new year
  • Decoding Economics: Happiness and Taste
  • Decoding Economics: The Real Economy

Where else to find me

  • Twitter
  • Post
  • Mastodon

Follow

  • Twitter
  • Mastodon

Bloggy Goodness

  • Agitator
  • DrugWar Rant
  • Duly Noted
  • Dynamist
  • Hit & Run
  • Honest Courtesan
  • Nobody's Business
  • Popehat
  • Ravings of a Feral Genius

Blawgs

  • a Public Defender
  • appellatesquawk
  • Blonde Justice
  • Chasing Truth. Catching Hell.
  • Crime & Federalism
  • Crime and Consequences Blog
  • Criminal Defense
  • CrimLaw
  • D.A. Confidential
  • Defending Dandelions
  • Defending People
  • DUI Blog
  • ECIL Crime
  • Gamso For the Defense
  • Graham Lawyer Blog
  • Hercules and the Umpire
  • Indefensible
  • Koehler Law Blog
  • Legal Satyricon
  • New York Personal Injury Law Blog
  • Norm Pattis
  • not for the monosyllabic
  • Not Guilty
  • Probable Cause
  • Seeking Justice
  • Simple Justice
  • Tempe Criminal Defense
  • The Clements Firm
  • The Trial Warrior Blog
  • The Volokh Conspiracy
  • Underdog Blog
  • Unwashed Advocate
  • West Virginia Criminal Law Blog

Bloggers

  • Booker Rising
  • Eric Zorn
  • ExCop-LawStudent
  • InstaPundit
  • Last One Speaks
  • Leslie's Omnibus
  • Marathon Pundit
  • Miss Manners
  • Preaching to the Choir
  • Roger Ebert's Journal
  • Speakeasy Blog
  • SWOP Chicago

Geek Stuff

  • Charlie's Diary
  • Google Blogoscoped
  • Schneier on Security
  • The Altruist
  • The Ancient Gaming Noob
  • The Daily WTF
  • xkcd

Resources

  • CIA World Factbook
  • Current Impact Risks
  • EFF: Bloggers
  • Institute for Justice
  • Jennifer Abel
  • StrategyPage
  • W3 EDGE, Optimization Products for WordPress
  • W3 EDGE, Optimization Products for WordPress
  • W3 EDGE, Optimization Products for WordPress
  • Wikipedia
  • WolframAlpha

Gone But Not Forgotten

  • Peter McWilliams

Copyright © 2025 Mark Draughn · Magazine Pro On Genesis Framework · WordPress

Go to mobile version