Its looking more and more like jury misconduct
 

From The Orlando Weekly

For a bunch who established during voir dire that they all but loathe the media, some of the Zimmerman jurors may have been quite eager to reach out to the communications industry ? and early enough to violate the rules of sequestration.

The first troubling sign was the announcement Monday that Juror B37 had signed a deal (later rescinded) with literary agent Sharlene Martin to market her story. The timeline proffered was that the juror had reached out to Martin on Sunday; if true, that would mean that, on a day when scores of Americans were in church struggling to make sense of the verdict, B37 was already working furiously to turn the death of Trayvon Martin into a personal profit center. Such a bent would be in keeping with the personality profile offered by Gail Brashers-Krug, a federal prosecutor and law professor turned criminal defense attorney, who after viewing B37?s voir dire told Slate:

?She really wants to be a juror. She seems to be going out of her way to minimize the disruptive effect of a multiweek trial on her life. Jurors rarely do that. ? Both sides tend to be very skeptical of jurors who are particularly eager to serve on high-profile cases. Often they have their own agendas, or are attention-seekers.?

But it isn?t B37?s mere desire to cash in on the trial that raises eyebrows: It?s how soon she may have started. According to mediabistro, Martin, the literary agent, claimed that B37 had been referred to her ?by a high ranking producer at one of the morning shows.? That means the juror would have to have established a relationship with a national morning-TV producer, asked said producer to recommend an agent, contacted Martin, and agreed to a deal with her ? all within a single Sunday.

That timeline doesn?t appear to make very much sense. Instead, it?s all but certain that B37 or someone acting on her behalf had started testing the waters earlier ? i.e., while the jury was still hammering out its verdict, or even before. Martin?s initial announcement of the deal stated that B37 would be co-authoring the book with her husband, an attorney. What role did he play in the negotiations, and why didn?t Anderson Cooper think to ask about any of this when he interviewed the juror for the Monday edition of his CNN program, Anderson Cooper 360?

Adding to the concern over potential juror misconduct, Zimmerman neighbor and friend Frank Taaffe had appeared on both the FOX News Channel and HLN on Saturday a few hours before the verdict was read, and had claimed to possess inside knowledge that the jury was at that moment polling 5 to 1 in favor of acquitting the defendant, with one juror holding out for manslaughter. At 2:48 PM on HLN, Taaffe at first merely claimed he was ?very comfortable? in this assessment and ?firmly believe[d]? it was the case; prodded by host Nancy Grace to explain how he had arrived at his belief, he went even further, stating, ?I know it?s 5 to 1.? Grace appeared to dismiss that allegation as ludicrous speculation, opining that Taaffe must have ?a Ouija board down [his] pants.?

Later, at 7:44 PM, Taaffe declared to FOX?s Harris Faulkner that he had ?some insight into the fact that it?s 5 to 1 in favor of acquittal, and the one holdout is now looking at the manslaughter charge.? The comment whizzed right by Faulkner, who didn?t even deign to ask Taaffe how he could know this.

Perhaps Taaffe was just blowing hot air. Yet three days later, when CNN?s Cooper aired the second part of his interview with B37, she confirmed that the penultimate jury poll had indeed been 5 to 1, with one juror holding out for manslaughter. In other words, Taaffe?s ?insight? into their deliberations had been entirely correct.

Could it have been mere coincidence that Taaffe happened to put the vote at 5 to 1 at the exact moment this was accurate? It?s possible. It?s also possible that he did indeed have inside access to the deliberations. Was it via juror B37 and/or her husband, who, as we?ve established, were likely in contact with that ?national morning-TV producer? by the time Taaffe made his brazen claim? Does the producer in question work for FOX or HLN? Or is s/he at CNN, where the juror chose to tell her story mere hours after her literary deal fell through?

And what if Taaffe?s source wasn?t connected to B37 at all? That would mean that two out of six jurors, or a full third of the jury, had violated the rules of sequestration. While the nation focuses on B37?s troubling comments to Cooper, and the pro-defense bias they arguably revealed, we should be looking deeper into the possibility that the verdict was compromised by simple and repeated misconduct ?all on the part of jurors who, either on their own or through proxies, couldn?t wait to make contact with the media they purportedly deplore.

http://blogs.orlandoweekly.com/index...immerman-jury/

Yeah, this isn't a story.

Not guilty. Move on.

Losers grasping at straws. Get on with life. This doesn't effect you.

Yeah, I'm sure the one juror with an attorney for a husband broke all the rules. Most plausible guess ever.

taaffee said it was 5-1 (multiple times, and on multiple networks/shows) because there was 5 whites and 1 non-white on the jury...

that was the extent of his 'inside knowledge'.

Explains why Zimmerman expressed zero emotion when the verdict was read, he already knew what it was going to be.

What struck me as odd about that juror was that in her interview she stated she was sure that it was Zimmerman crying out for help in the 911 tape. But how could she have been sure? Even the experts didn't know with the voice analysis they had. Both sets of parents were claiming it was their son. It's very bold to be sure and not consistent with someone who is objective and rational.

Regarding these accusations I do think it's just speculation. But given Taaffe?s statements it might be enough for at least an investigation. Deliberation went on for two days so it is possible that a juror could have tried to contact someone over night.

That she was the wife of an attorney did not sit too well with me. It could be my bias but I question whether it was appropriate for her to be on the jury. It's possible she made herself jury foreman based on being "the wife of an attorney" and then went on to basically take over everything telling everyone what they must do because "she knows better". A couple of her statements suggest to me that she was heavily on Zimmerman's side more so than she let on. The voice on the 911 call is but one example of this.

I think it is a huge story. It's no secret how I feel about the Zimmerman case, but I've learned to live the verdict. But if we have a juror that was less interested in the truth and more interested in a non guilty verdict to inflame public opinion in order to profit from it... That can be a huge issue.

If she violated court orders or court rules while sequestered, she may have broken some laws and should be held accountable.

yo ujust think that this gives you another opportunity to have a chance at being right on calling the zimzmaflimflam trial.

it doesn't

the story is simply the media trying to extend the news cycle of this completely fabricated and over-sensationalized trial.


just walk away.
:)

Yea cause a juror having a book deal signed within a day after the verdict is perfectly normal. :1orglaugh

that's how you read my comment? what grade are you in?

Based on your use of the English language I was going to ask you the same but knowing you already have self esteem issues I thought I'd be nice.

lol, a gfy psychologist. diagnosis via internet forum comments.

i thought you were a guy, that was my mistake.

I thought they got locked in a room during the trial.


http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-...-trial-jurors/



ORLANDO, FLA. About $33,000 was spent to sequester the six female jurors who acquitted George Zimmerman of any crime for fatally shooting Trayvon Martin, according to details released Wednesday by the Seminole County Sheriff's Office.

The sheriff's office spent almost 10 times that amount ? $320,000 ? on total costs related to the trial, including overtime and equipment.

During their three weeks of sequestration, jurors took an excursion to St. Augustine, Fla.; watched the movies "The Lone Ranger" and "World War Z;" went on bowling excursions; and saw Fourth of July fireworks.

All television, Internet use, mail and phone calls were screened and logged by deputies who provided security for them at all times. Jurors were allowed to use their cell phones once a day to check for voicemails and make calls in front of a deputy, according to the sheriff's office.

Jurors ate most of their breakfast and dinner meals at the Marriott hotel where they stayed during sequestration. They dined out twice.

They received visits on weekends from family and friends, who had to sign an agreement promising not to discuss anything related to the case.

the funniest part about your troll attempt is you completely lack the ability to comprehend my comment, here, i'll restate it in part, in easier words for you-

there is nothing normal about a media circus trial.

do you get that?

They were still permitted to make calls but it was in front of a deputy. If you think about it it is entirely possible to come up with code words or code phrases in advance to convey basic things such as which way the jury is leaning. For instance "If I bring up the car that means we are leaning towards acquittal. If I bring up the house that means we are leaning towards guilty".

Depending on how things were done there are other ways to convey messages too. For instance if there are visible windows and someone knows the floor and general area they are on there could be an agreement to do something like flash the lights in a predefined way as part of a code.

Could you also completely rule out listening devices too? I highly doubt they strip searched the jury. :upsidedow

To a great extent you rely on the jurors not intentionally engaging in any misconduct. The only other way to stop that is total isolation in a prison with no outside contact and things like strip searches. :)

One thing is for sure … THE WHITE GUY DIDN'T DO IT!

No, like I said, I am okay with the verdict at this point. Seems the US government is looking into charges. I'm just saying that this woman's conduct is highly suspect.

I do have to admit, I've stopped watched the news at this point because they are STILL talking about. It's gotten old.

I read they were allowed to have visitors... Didn't say anything about having an officer watching over them 24/7.

I get that you have a lot of anger and anti-social issues which I can only surmise is the reason you spend every waking hour on this site. :2 cents:

I think this happens with most high profile trials.

another internet psychological profile. thanks for taking the time to pay attention to my posts and to evaluate them.

i haven't really paid attention to how much time i spend here but again, thanks for keeping an eye on things for me.

btw, your story is officially dead. this is not on the front page any of the mainstream new sites.

That makes no sense, are you drunk?

good to hear! :thumbsup

you can't follow a simple 2 post exchange and i'm the one that's drunk. :1orglaugh:1orglaugh



this is too easy. enjoy your weekend. :)

What I found interesting was just how much the jury got to do outside of the trial. It seems to me that it would be prudent to try and keep the jury as focused as possible on the trial but they had plenty of diversions.

They listened to testimony all day and then went bowling or took a trip to St. Augustine. I haven't seen either movie they watched but I'm guessing there was a gun used in one or both of them which could possibly influence a juror.

We have a long day at work, sometimes you want to put that behind you and relax by going out for a nice dinner and unwind by forgetting the day. The jurors got to do that too. I would think it would be a priority to keep the testimony in the forefront of the jury's mind and not find ways to let them forget it.

The juror that did the interview on AC360 said that when they went to deliberations they wanted to go through all the evidence again which is an indication that they hadn't weighed it, forgot it or wasn't paying attention when it was presented the first time.

Also worth noting is they only deliberated for a little over three hours before asking to call it a day. I don't know how much contact they can have while deliberating but if they have the same freedom they had during the rest of the sequestration it would certainly give time for any outside influence.

I realize we can't expect to have the jurors locked away somewhere in total isolation but I was shocked to learn just how much freedom they do have and just how vulnerable they are to outside influences if anyone were to try and break the rules.

When you listen to her Anderson Cooper interview, she sounds like she was very sympathetic of George Zimmerman's situation. She said its a tragedy on both sides. What kind of logic is that?

One guy needs a band aid and the other is dead. I wanted to reach into the TV and slap that dummy.