VISIT MY YOUTUBE CHANNEL,.
A companion blog, The Metacognition Project, has been created to focus specifically on metacognition and related consciousness processes. Newest essay on TMP: Goals and Problems, part twoMonday, July 15, 2013
The Zimmerman Jury
“I'm no idealist to believe firmly in the integrity of
our courts and in the jury system -- that
is no ideal to me, it is a living, working reality. Gentlemen, a court is no
better than each man of you sitting before me on this jury. A court is only as sound as its jury, and a jury
is only as sound as the men who make it up.” Harper Lee
“Clients tell us our involvement adds unique
value to the trial team by reducing the uncertainty in jury selection. We draw upon case-specific research and
our experience in similar litigation to construct juror profiles and tools for
eliciting bias. Through well-constructed Supplemental Juror Questionnaires
(SJQs) and voir dire questions, we help counsel draw out the attitudes and
experiences that predispose jurors against our client, so that peremptory
strikes can be exercised intelligently. Our training as social scientists
and experience interviewing thousands of mock and actual jurors gives us unique
insight into what goes on behind closed doors in deliberations, and how to
identify the most dangerous jurors.” Introductory statement
from a jury selection firm website
I don’t want to write this piece; was hoping that someone
would write about the forces working on the jury. But, other than a piece by Bruce
Jackson in Counterpunch, using a quote by Bill Kunstler dismissing what
will soon be my argument, I have not found a discussion that absolves me of the
responsibility.
Here is what I know about the Jury: 6 women (five called
white and one called Hispanic), all from the Sanford area, anonymous now and
wishing to remain anonymous in the future. I assume that one or more them may be a mother. I know that the jury asked for a
listing of the evidence early in the deliberations and that later there was a
question about the charge of manslaughter option; that they deliberated for
about 16 hours. The jury was sequestered
for the duration of the trial.
The jury members were selected, at least in part, because
they didn’t report having strong feelings about the case at hand or much
detailed knowledge of the case. I
suspect that the defense wanted all women and that the prosecution didn’t fully
appreciate the value of such a selection for the defense.
The key elements are: (1) that the jury members were from
the Sanford area; (2) they were all women (my guess is that all were married,
something that would have been important to the defense); (3) that they were
sequestered; and (4) that there was no way for their anonymity to extend to
family, friends and immediate community: their decision would be known to their
communities, but their identities beyond their immediate communities would be
less likely to be known, at least for a time.
The jurors, therefore, would not be making a decision in a
vacuum of public opinion – with the blindfold of justice – but with the
certainty that their decision would be answered for in their homes, schools,
churches, jobs and grocery stores. These
women were not free agents; they had husbands, brothers, fathers, and uncles
whose attitudes were there in the courtroom with them. They had children to protect.
They were part of a community whose legal system would not
have even questioned George Zimmerman beyond his initial story, much less
charge him, except for “outside agitation.” These women did not have to be racist in any way to behave
with racism for self-protection.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment