Juror in Zimmerman’s Trial Says She Was Demeaned and Mocked By Other Jurors

The Daily Beast reports that Maddy, also known as Juror B29, spoke with Lisa Bloom about her experience.  They have published an excerpt from Bloom’s just published Suspicion Nation.

Maddy3

Maddy – Juror B 29

Maddy revealed that she was fed up before the trial was over.  Being the only minority on the jury, she said that she was sequestered with five White women who didn’t understand her.  They demeaned, mocked and trivialized her.  She was ready to leave and return home saying, “If they had to put me in jail for going home, then put me in jail.”

Maddy told Lisa Bloom that she isolated herself, mostly staying in her room, away from the other jurors, securing herself from their words and cruel laughter and judgments about her.

During her voir dire, Maddy says that Don West scared the hell out of her.  She felt that he was accusing her of lying.  “I felt naive and dumb from the beginning,” Maddy said. And her gnawing unease mounted each day the trial went on.

Lisa Bloom 2

Lisa Bloom

An excerpt from Lisa Bloom’s book;

“To many, Zimmerman appeared to have racially profiled Trayvon and shot and killed him based on the deepest, ugliest stereotypes still embedded in the American psyche: that blacks are criminals, dangerous—“they” get away with their crimes—“they” must be watched, followed—those assholes. Most of black America grasped immediately that a boy was dead from those prejudices.”

“Many African-American commentators spoke about the personal pain they felt in hearing Trayvon lumped in with “these assholes” and “fucking punks”—that recorded language confirming their fears that they were constantly misjudged, stereotyped, suspicious merely for walking while black.”

The book is titled Suspicion Nation: The Inside Story of the Trayvon Martin Injustice and Why We Continue to Repeat.  It is 320 pages and sells for $25.00.   I plan on purchasing it.

Lisa Bloom

Posted on 02/26/2014, in Justice For Trayvon and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 85 Comments.

  1. Lisa Bloom on “Creepy ass cracker.”

    Like

  2. Thank you for all your great posts Xena!

    Like

  3. You’d think she would use that anger and channel it into action. I still think she is culpable. She could have hung that jury. She knows how minorities are treated yet turned over like a kicked dog.I do not plan on buying her 320 pages of a whining excuse.

    Like

    • Like

      Like

    • Two sides to a story

      I agree. Maddy should have researched her responsibilities as a juror and since she believed Zimmerman guilty, should have hung the jury. All the personal background noise she experienced is quite telling and reflects the racial animosity in the case that the defense team wanted to minimize, but it should have been reported and dealt with and should not have influenced Maddy’s vote as a juror.

      However, the book isn’t only about Maddy, cielo – it’s written by a civil rights lawyer and could be one of the best books about the case so far.

      Truth is definitely coming to light and although DOJ says they’re not likely to be able to do anything with their case against Zimmerman, hopefully they can do something about jury issues like this. Is there any way to launch an investigation of this particular jury?

      Like

    • roderick2012

      @ cielo62, Maddy is playing the victim and her act is getting old fast.

      She’s almost as annoying as Piglet.

      ‘Look at poor pitiful me’.

      Well look at poor Trayvon. He’s in the grave and didn’t get justice thanks to Maddy’s cowardice.

      Like

  4. This is a link to Jeffrey Toobin’s Foreword to the book:

    http://lisabloom.com/site/suspicion-nation-preview/

    Excerpt:

    The heart of Bloom’s book is her critique of the presentation of the case against Zimmerman by Florida’s State’s Attorneys. There was really only one issue in the trial. What was Zimmerman’s intent when he fired the fatal shot into Trayvon Martin’s heart? Did his actions reflect the recklessness necessary to find him guilty of second degree murder, as the prosecution contended? Or was Zimmerman merely acting in self defense, as his lawyers maintained? It was not an easy case for either side, and we all now know that Zimmerman was swiftly acquitted.

    But Bloom argues that the prosecutors could have won this case—but, in simple terms, they blew it. As Bloom writes, “The overlooked evidence, lack of witness preparation, and poor strategic choices made by the state’s attorneys were nothing short of astonishing.”

    Like

  5. Jueseppi B.

    Reblogged this on The ObamaCrat™.

    Like

  6. Thank you for this post about my book. I urge everyone to read Maddy’s painful story before you judge her. And ultimately, to focus your anger on the professionals in that courtroom, who failed to do their job in bringing justice to Trayvon Martin.

    Best,

    Lisa Bloom

    Like

    • Lisa.
      I am honored and humbled by your visit to Blackbutterfly7.

      I agree with your comment. When I think of Maddy, I think of my own experience being born and raised in Chicago. Although I moved from the city in 1979, I still worked and had family in the city. I didn’t move to the South — just 80 miles northwest of Chicago, and it was like moving to a foreign country. Chicago is a huge city and many people are not only acceptable of different cultures, but they enjoy learning of those cultures by patronizing the businesses, enjoying a meal and music.

      Maddy’s move to Florida and being there less than a year before summoned for jury duty must have been an experience that placed her in culture shock.

      Thanks again for your visit and comment.

      Like

    • Lisa….I just got your book & agree with You about Maddy.I am only on page 25,but can already see this is going to be a great book to read! I can’t wait to dive in! I popped in here to tell everyone to give it a chance because the whole book is not just about Maddy.This is your views of the whole thing.

      Like

    • @ Lisa – And we thank YOU for your book! I haven’t bought it yet, but I will.

      The TRUTH needs to be exposed and recorded for history – and since it’s such ugly truth in this case, it’s especially urgent to do so. The BS about “he was acquitted, therefore …” so COMPLETELY misses the mark on so many levels, and ignores so many known facts (and previously unknown facts, which you’re revealing), that it is nothing short of sickening and a disgrace to our country in general and, particularly, to the Gunshine State.

      None of the players in the courtroom gave a rat’s a$$ about justice for Trayvon. But so many of us out here cared very deeply, and we were betrayed by the joke of a “trial” that was choreographed before our eyes.

      Thank you again. I look forward to reading your book after hearing you and others talk about it.

      Like

  7. I have to admit that I have been frustrated with this juror knowing she could have done something since she came out to tell everyone Z got away with murder.I still don’t understand why the other jurors either have not come forward or their names been released(except for the $$$$ one) wanting to write a book before she even unpacked her suitcase! Maybe Maddy was scared,you know women can be mean when they want to….especially ganging up on someone! I am sending my Daughter out to find the book today so hopefully I can understand Maddy a little more.I feel its the right thing for me to do.

    Like

  8. Reblogged this on idealisticrebel and commented:
    Important read

    Like

  9. I’m sure you’ve already seen this: O’Mara pushing for a change in the SYG law. Oh the irony…

    http://news.msn.com/us/zimmerman-lawyer-seeks-change-in-florida-trials-on-stand-your-ground-law#tscptmf

    Like

    • mindyme62,
      From the article,

      The stand your ground provision allows people who “reasonably” believe they are in imminent danger of serious bodily injury to use deadly force to defend themselves even if, despite their belief, no real threat exists.

      That’s the problem, and while O’Mara appears to focus on the Zimmerman and Dunn cases, how does his suggested changes apply to Reeves? O’Mara thinks that juries can decide on what is “reasonable fear,” so I suppose that as long as Reeves has a reasonable fear of popcorn, it justified him using deadly force.

      Dunn claims that he thought saw a shotgun, but then he also claims that Jordan was jumping back into the SUV and it began backing up to pull off, (resulting in the door closing), when he opened fire. By Dunn’s own story, he was no longer under a threat when he decided to fire his gun.

      Zimmerman claims that he was pinned down by Trayvon, but by his own words and demonstration, he had Trayvon’s arm pinned when he un-holstered his gun, aimed to make sure he didn’t shoot his own hand, and fired a hollow point bullet into Trayvon’s heart. He claims that he had moved his head off the concrete. By Zimmerman’s own story, Trayvon was no longer a threat when he killed him.

      O’Mara cannot recover from the travesty he caused. Everyone who watched the trial from the standpoint of truth will remember him picking up that dummy by the shoulders to bang it on the floor to put on a good act before the jury. Zimmerman never said that Trayvon picked him up by the shoulders to bash his head and factually, that would be impossible for Trayvon to do.

      Everyone watching the trial from the standpoint of truth remembers that O’Mara brought in a piece of concrete saying it was a weapon, which was contrary to Zimmerman’s story that he removed his head from the concrete and that purportedly exposed his gun.

      Unless O’Mara is going to push that jury instructions include that jurors pay close attention to the chronological order of defendant’s stories in spite of their lawyers’ misrepresentations, he should keep his mouth shut.

      Like

    • O’Mara said some people now believe the use of deadly force is more justified than it is.

      Well, golly gee, MOM – we have YOUR sorry a$$ to thank for that.

      Not surprisingly, he doesn’t mention the incident instigator – “aggressor” – aspect, and how that should be given the emphasis it deserves. He still wants people to ignore that the incident that culminated in Trayvon’s murder started LONG before CAC and Trayvon came face to face.

      The fact is, MOM’s client was a VIGILANTE, and the only person trying to “stand his ground” that evening was Trayvon!

      But it’s hard to stand your ground successfully when all you have Skittles and a soft drink, and the vigilante PURSUING YOU is packing a gun with hollow tip bullets.

      Like

  10. and this: “Zimmerman did not use the stand your ground law in his defense, although the judge hearing his case cited it in her instructions to the jury.

    Florida’s law states:

    “A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.”

    http://news.msn.com/crime-justice/stand-your-ground-applies-to-school-bus-fights-too?ocid=msnnws

    Like

    • mindyme62,
      You know, I’m so sick of those saying that Zimmerman didn’t use stand your ground in his defense. That is EXACTLY why the SPD did not arrest him because they applied SYG to his version of events.

      Had O’Mara and West not wanted SYG for Zimmerman’s defense, they would have written jury instructions removing SYG language. They didn’t, although they argued and prevailed on having the initial aggressor portion removed from jury instructions.

      In essence, Zimmerman’s and Dunn’s attorneys want to treat SYG statute like a buffet restaurant selecting only those portions they want to put on their clients’ plates; then saying that they entered the SYG restaurant but only spooned up what they wanted so it wasn’t a SYG defense.

      Like

      • To use SYG according to the law, he had to file a per – trial Motion. They waived that in April 2013. I believe it would have been denied and the defense didn’t want any more denials being held against Fogen. I think they thought if it was denied, the state would have waved it all over that he was not standing his ground and this was not self defense.

        Moron O’ Mara slipped it in repeatedly at trial ans even Nelson gave the jury SYG wording, which to me, is bullshit.

        “…a buffet restaurant….” yep, a pretty good comparison.

        Like

    • Joseph Norton

      The Judge is a moron of epically proportion or she purposely sided with the child killer.

      Like

  11. Sorry Maddy, I really don’t care what the others thought of you. It was not your job to care what they thought of you either. You, being the only minority,

    Like

    • Exactly so…..If she had actually sent a message to the Judge, either a mistrial would be declared or a juror or two removed and replaced.

      I saw this exact same thing here in NJ.

      Like

      • racerrodig,

        All she had to do was send a note to the Judge…….very simple.

        Would the bailiff had taken it? If I’m not mistaken, they are only authorized to take notes from the jury’s foreperson.

        Judge Healey in Dunn’s trial showed me something that caused me to think back to Zimmerman’s trial. It was when he retained the alternate jurors in the event that a juror had to leave. He first retained all four, then released two. I’m not sure when he released the last two alternates, but he showed wisdom by retaining them at least until he felt it was no longer necessary.

        On the other hand, Judge Nelson released the alternates after closing arguments.

        Like

        • I don’t know about FL but in NJ any juror can report a problem like that. The Judge can elect to ignore it however.

          Like

          • Racerrodig,
            I don’t know if Maddy could think beyond her experience and didn’t know if the judge would do anything or if she would become a part of it — had she been able to get a note to Judge Nelson.

            Had it been me in her shoes, I would demanded that the jury and attorneys for both sides meet in chambers and I would have told it ALL! I would have written it all down, stayed with my belief in Zimmerman’s guilt, hung the jury, and as soon as the jury was released, mailed it to the newspapers and a copy to myself to assure the safety of my family.

            Like

  12. Sharon Burney

    I concur, if as she says she identifies as a black woman, then sorry but we experience racism on a daily basis, and in such are not typically shocked by racist actions of others, so why now are you cowering? They picked her because they could bully her during the jury voir dire, and they picked juror 8 in the Dunn case because they saw her lack of life experience and knowledge base on race, her passivity, because they will never pick black jurors that are educated, aware, confident and not swayed by bullying. We know this, i have been called to jury duty almost every year and have never been picked. I also notice when there is a newsteam filming live at an event the random blacks picked in the crowd always fit a stereotype of what many racists believe about the entire race. None of these acts are random, the real question is why did the prosecution agree with these selections.

    Like

    • Sharon,

      I concur, if as she says she identifies as a black woman, then sorry but we experience racism on a daily basis, and in such are not typically shocked by racist actions of others, so why now are you cowering?

      I’m not sure that Maddy said she identifies as a black woman. She is a Black Latina. I don’t know what section of Chicago she resided in, but it is possible for people of color in Chicago to live with minimum exposure to racism unless it’s in the workplace.

      In Chicago, there are people of color from Egypt, Africa, New Zealand, the Caribbean, Trinidad/Tobago, East India and even France, Ireland, Poland and the U.K. They have to go no further than their own neighborhood in their daily lives. They own the stores, the clubs, the restaurants, the businesses.

      My guess is that Maddy, being from Chicago, had no idea that her color would been apart and separate from her culture.

      Like

  13. Sorry, didn’t finish yet….

    You, being the only minority, are smart enough to realize what they were doing was wrong, you should have spoke up and advised someone, instead of caving in, which is exactly what they wanted you to do. You say you could have lied and said you where breastfeeding to avoid being chosen, but that would have been wrong, instead you complain you were treated wrong, and wanted to go home, and that makes it right? Quit trying to pass the blame, you had choices, you know right from wrong, this wasn’t about you, but you decided you were through and you just wanted to go home. Funny thing is,Trayvon only wanted to go home, instead of caring that justice was served, you let his killer go home.

    Like

  14. Sharon Burney

    colonization occurred worldwide, whether an individual wants to accept their blackness or not is an option, however i do not believe she does not identify with her minority status if she felt the others jurors were racist towards her? There is no excuse for her choice to not speak out on this issue, it was her obligation.

    Like

    • Sharon,
      I understand what you’re saying and while I ultimately agree that Maddy should have stayed on her belief of Zimmerman’s guilt, I can relate to her shock of being demeaned by the other jurors. This is a matter that involves two different things, the first being that the jury was sequestered and could not discuss the case. The second being that while sequestered, they only had each other as company.

      So, here you are sitting at a meal with 5 other women. We can gather from Maddy’s other interviews that they talked about their careers and families. For instance, she knew that Juror B 37’s husband is a lawyer. Maddy has stated that the other jurors talked about who they knew. Those 5 women did what they did to Maddy to exert authority and superiority over her.

      By the time it came to deliberations, Maddy had already gotten the message from the other jurors that she didn’t matter.

      By the jury’s foreperson not returning a more specific question to Judge Nelson to clarify manslaughter, we get a glimpse of how disrespectful Maddy was treated. That the jury reached a verdict without that clarification speaks volumes. And then, Juror B37 wanted to take advantage of that to write a book saying that the law is confusing. It didn’t have to be. They could have gotten clarification of manslaughter rather than interpreting it to mean what they wanted it to mean to acquit Zimmerman.

      Like

      • You know, I was accused of being misogynistic at the time (which felt odd, since I’m female), but I’ve worked in exclusively female environments, predominantly male environments, and gender neutral environments, and I KNEW that jury would be dysfunctional. Because that’s how exclusively female environments tend to be.

        I don’t advocate, agree with, or even want to have to acknowledge that, but I’ve been there and learned it.

        We need men in the mixture to function at our best (… and men need us for the same reason!).

        Viva la difference!

        Like

        • groans,
          O’Mara wanted a jury of Zimmerman’s peers. (wink, wink)

          Like

          • There ya go … BINGO !! (wink, wink)

            I should also clarify, though, that I think it would be less of an issue with a 12-person jury. Twelve people ensure more diversity, overall – on a variety of factors – even if they’re all the same gender. And group dynamics (especially with respect to any “clique” mentality or domination) in a 12-person group vs. a six-person group are significantly different, in my experience and opinion.

            I have never been a fan of 6-person juries … even though it was the federal court system that started them, IIRC.

            Like

          • groans,

            And group dynamics (especially with respect to any “clique” mentality or domination) in a 12-person group vs. a six-person group are significantly different, in my experience and opinion.

            Totally. In situations of sequestration,with 12 people together, there can be several conversations taking place. With 6 people in a room together, or sitting around the table eating, it is more likely to be just one conversation.

            Like

          • Yes, Xena. And you state it better, because I think we’ve heard that “cliques” actually did form in the 12-person Dunn jury. The important difference, though, is that there were multiple cliques; thus, neither / none was dominant (obviously!).

            Your simple observation about conversational capacity and channels illustrates the dynamics difference excellently! Everyone can relate to it, because they’ve experienced the difference between, say, dinner time in a nuclear family versus Thanksgiving dinner with extended family and friends.

            I think it’s also illustrative for my initial reaction to the all-female, six-person jury in CAC’s trial:

            >> The dynamics among a group of six women hanging out, eating dinner, etc. would change noticeably if just one man was substituted for one of the women.

            >> Similarly, the dynamics among a group of six men hanging out, eating dinner, etc. would change noticeably if just one woman was substituted for one of the men.

            I’m not a sociologist and can’t explain it, but I know what I’ve learned from many decades walking this planet. And I think others can readily see the difference, too, by applying your “conversational capacity and channels” observation to their own life experiences.

            Like

          • groans,
            Thank you for the “conversational capacity and channels.” You put a term to it and it makes sense.

            My experience came from serving on committees for Rotary and the local Chamber of Commerce for events.

            When any group comes together under rules that they cannot talk about the case, they have to find something else in common to talk about or remain silent. Maybe — just maybe if they allowed sequestered jurors to talk about the case, they would be able to remind each other of what took place in court to keep their minds fresh.

            For jurors such as Maddy, it was like 3 weeks of being in class with no one to help with homework until testing time.

            Like

  15. Like

  16. Joseph Norton

    I do not know from what planet Maddy is coming from?

    Enough of excuses for her cowardice,the damaged is already done,there is nothing she can said or do to cleanser herself.

    Being Black or Hispanic is not excuse for her passivity and self victimization,she need to go away, the more she speak about it the more disgusting she appear to be.

    Like

  17. judging Maddy for not standing up when Judge corrupt denied their one question seems harsh to me? and unrealistic.

    Like

  18. I still want to know how Taaffe knew that that the jury stood at 5 to 1 BEFORE the jury returned to the courtroom with its verdict.

    Like

  19. Reblogged this on Mysterious Observations and commented:
    Very Interesting. Shows how predisposed toward George Zimmerman the jury was!

    Like

  20. Hi,
    I’ve been gone almost a week, so have missed a lot, but I did see Lisa Bloom and I do blieve that Maddy agonizes and always will,
    All she had to do was a send a note to the judge??? No, that wasn’t that easy.
    This whole trial was meant for GZ to get off. I’m sure she didn’t want to be on the jury!
    You have 5 other all white women on the jury, she wasn’t the foreman and the foreman wasn’t going to do anything but lie to her.
    I say shame on all of their asses. NOT ONE other woman stood up to the bullies.
    Don’t tell me that anyone of the other 5 didn’t have the guts to stand up to the bullies.
    Just becaus Maddy was the manority, the 5 that did nothing to stand up were just at fault as Maddy.
    She shouldn’t have to live with quilt the rest of her life.
    This court, no matter what Maddy would have done, knew what they were going to do and made it happen.
    This jury should be investigate by the FBI!!!

    ( Saying it would have been easy for her to send a note to the judge is like the Zimmerman sympathizers saying why didn’t Trayvon just go home? )

    Yahtzee, I think Taffe knew from a couple of people. One who testified and the other, the jury foreman. That’s my opinion anyway.
    They should investigate that also. It is recorded.

    groans said “O’Mara said some people now believe the use of deadly force is more justified than it is.”
    O’mara speaks for the NRA. I’m sure he wants people to fear more and everyone carry a gun,

    Someone needs to stop the Stand Your Ground law BS.
    Can’t somone take it to the USSC????????

    This is total bullshit. I think even the idiot that wrote it believes the same.
    It’s a just get away with murder.

    As far as there being ANYTHING Gz could have done was get his ass home. No one was stopping him, then this wouldn’t have happened.
    Plain and simple Dunn and Zimmerman are just cold blooded killers.

    I think Lisa Bloom is right, at least she knew it was racist and doesn’t deny it.
    We have to stop this madness and we’re not going to unless we start facing the ugliness of racism.
    When you know it exist, you don’t ignore it because it is ugly.
    How can we call this America the beautiful when we continue to let this ugliness be such a part of it? And BTW hate radio and hate speech doesn’t help. How can that be beautiful?
    We are all the same and we should learn to protect othes.
    Those women that didn’t have at least ONE out of the 5 stand up, they are More of the problem than Maddy

    Like

    • Lolypop,
      Good to see you.

      I say shame on all of their asses. NOT ONE other woman stood up to the bullies.
      Don’t tell me that anyone of the other 5 didn’t have the guts to stand up to the bullies.

      They would not do that for an “outsider.” There’s something strange about small towns where power and authority is in the hands of a few, where employment is by nepotism and patronage, and they want their dirty secrets to remain secrets and lack of qualifications to go unjudged. People assume that “outsiders” come in to change them or take advantage of them.

      This is total bullshit. I think even the idiot that wrote it believes the same.
      It’s a just get away with murder.

      Based on a comment sent to this blog, SYG came with a 50 year plan. While seeing those such as Dunn to be collateral damage, the 50 year plan is to eliminate “knuckdraggers” using self-defense claims. The only option is for Blacks to voluntarily give up their rights as equal citizens and submit to Whites, even to moving off the sidewalk when seeing Whites walk towards them, ala Jim Crow days.

      In other words, it’s the way that Sovereign Citizens render the14th constitutional amendment and laws against murder moot. That goes along with their ideology that common law is not illegal, and only laws make some legal actions unlawful. It’s a screwed up theory.

      Like

      • Xena,
        ohhhh, that makes me so ill.
        I’m white and I don’t think I’m one bit better than anyone. I’m disgusted, like Marilyn
        to see anything racist these days.
        To think that someone had to move for me on the sidewalk sickens me.
        I never went to a water fountain because I didn’t feel right. I would rather have been thirsty.
        Those 5 jurors make me sick.
        I wonder why not one of them have spoken. No. 37 spoke, but was so ashamed, ” I hope” ( not a chance ) that she didn’t show her face.
        In spite of Maddy believing she made a mistake and taking heat over it, she at least isn’t trying to hide her face.
        I don’t get it and never will.
        I will ALWAYS take up for the one being bullied. I’ve done it all my life and don’t intend to stop now.
        BTW, do you know if Lisa Bloom mentions who the other 5 are, OR that #37’s husband is a lawyer?
        I’m going over before going to bed and ordering her book.
        I hope someway that this is overturned because of jury misconduct!
        Plus sent to another county!

        Like

        • Lolypop,
          It’s the minority of White Supremacists and Sovereign Citizens who, after 2008, schemed in using legislatures and laws to render other laws and constitutional amendments moot. They found no success in their “natural born” lawsuits filed challenging Barack Obama, so have taken it to a level of a 50 year agenda so there will be no Black males in the United States qualified by age to run for President.

          I hope someway that this is overturned because of jury misconduct!

          Unfortunately, jury misconduct is only beneficial to convicted defendants in efforts to have their convictions overturned. Those acquitted are protected by the constitutional double jeopardy clause.

          There are times I wonder if the 5 women on Zimmerman’s jury have taken a look at him since they set him free? They really did him no favor. His life is a mess.

          Like

          • But Xena,
            They are bound by the law to do the right thing.
            They didn’t in my opinion.
            What about The Martins asking for a civil suit.
            They did it in the OJ case and to me that was double jeopardy.
            They always say for murder in the civil case.
            Can’t be he was already aquitted.
            But they did it anyway.

            Like

  21. I purchased Lisa Blooms book on my kindle the day it was released, I’m on chapter 3, but I read Maddys part. I feel so bad for her, she irritated me with her interviews, but I now understand why she folded. You guys have to
    Read lisa’s book.!

    Xena you were right about juror b37!. In lisa’s book it talks about her biases about trayvon and him being a “bad kid” and how she heard things about trayvon on the news (which she wasn’t suppose to bring into the deliberation) they treated maddy bad, she was drained emotionally. She tried but didn’t stick to her convictions. She already felt inadequate around the all white jurors! B37 is a racist! She came in biased! And knew to acquit GZ no matter what

    Like

  22. Xena, I know I read somewhere that in order for a civil case to be filed against GZ, trayvon’s parents would only have 2 years to file, the 2 years are up so I’m guessing there will be no civil Suit?.

    Like

    • monicajo,
      Re: a civil suit.

      I am not a lawyer, but I’ve worked for lawyers and judges and respond to your question based on that experience. I do not know one attorney who will file a civil suit when the defendant has no assets and is $2.5 million in debt. Even if they succeed and get a judgment, either by litigation or default, there is no way to collect it.

      O’Mara and West have ability to file attorney liens on any of Zimmerman’s future assets, and les penden liens on any real property he might purchase in the future. Since their bill was acquired first, everyone else will have to stand in line.

      Like

  23. Love this song….I am keeping my hoodie up!

    Like

  24. Lisa Bloom’s ‘Suspicion Nation’ dips into Trayvon Martin case

    http://www.latimes.com/books/jacketcopy/la-ca-jc-lisa-bloom-20140302,0,1301510.story#ixzz2ueak18lT

    Excerpts:

    Bloom is, in fact, a television pundit, in addition to being the daughter of high-profile lawyer Gloria Allred.

    and

    ….her analysis of the Zimmerman prosecution’s many missteps is a compelling one.

    What were those mistakes? For starters, the prosecutors failed to establish the “unreasonableness” of Zimmerman’s fears of Trayvon, Bloom writes. Shooting someone in self-defense is justifiable, according to Florida law, if one has a “reasonable” fear of death or serious bodily harm. Zimmerman misread the situation because he was overtly prejudiced and was fixated on black youths in his neighborhood, as established by several previous 911 calls, Bloom argues. Inexplicably, the prosecutor did not play those tapes for the jury, despite having won an earlier legal battle to do so.

    The prosecution also failed to aggressively point out the obvious contradictions in Zimmerman’s testimony about his confrontation and fisticuffs with Trayvon and the shooting that followed, Bloom argues.

    “Somehow, during the presentation of the evidence at Zimmerman’s trial, the prosecution was unaware of the vitally important fact that Zimmerman’s gun was holstered on his backside,” Bloom writes. Thus positioned, it was nearly impossible for Trayvon to have seen it (therefore disproving Zimmerman’s assertion that Trayvon was reaching for the weapon). Most critically, it would have made it impossible for Zimmerman to take the weapon out of his holster if he had been on his back, with Trayvon on top of him, as he told police.

    Bloom writes that if the prosecution had conducted a reenactment of Zimmerman’s version of events, he would have been unmasked as a “liar.”

    Like

    • Yahtzee,
      I remember seeing the prosecution present and say things they did not flesh it out. For instance, the clubhouse videos. All they could do was play portions showing headlights by the mail kiosk and clubhouse. I wondered why they failed having an expert testify.

      Early on, I compared Zimmerman’s claims to those of John Orr, who was arrested in Oct. 2012 and who was denied immunity. His trial is still pending. Some of Zimmerman’s claims mirror those of Orr’s, and I expected the State to present a case similar to what they did at Orr’s immunity hearing. For instance, testimony on debris, blood splatter or the lack thereof.

      It occurred to me recently that when the State told the jury to use their common sense, that it might be due to the fact that so many on the internet demonstrated using common sense to know that what Zimmerman said happened could not have happened.

      I heard Bernie de la Rionda tell the jury about Zimmerman saying he walked back towards Trayvon. I saw him present a photo of Zimmerman’s boots with mud and grass on the toes. I saw Mantei play the clubhouse video, and then heard Bernie at closing tell the jury that they could see Trayvon leaving the mail kiosk and Zimmerman driving slowly following him. He failed to bring out what Zimmerman was telling dispatch as he was doing that.

      Then I remembered — there are videos on Youtube that I, Whonoze and his team, and LLMPapa did that put those things together. Common sense. Trent Sawyer had a video showing that Zimmerman’s shimmy would have resulted in Trayvon’s knees at Zimmerman’s ears — not the way GZ described it as exposing his gun to Trayvon. Common sense. LLMPapa did videos demonstrating the bullet holes in Trayvon’s shirt not lining up with the bullet hole in his chest. Common sense says that Trayvon’s shirts were being held down.

      At trial, the defense argued that the iced tea can in the pocket of Trayvon’s hoodie weighted it down. The prosecution failed to counter with there being no pocket and nothing weighing down the t-shirt underneath the hoodie, yet the bullet hole lined up perfectly in both shirts.

      I waited for the prosecution to ask the witness whether keys were found on Trayvon. How was he suppose to enter the house? How would he have entered the house? Common sense — he would have to do so from the front by either entering the code to open the garage or calling Chad to open the front door. Common sense — that would take Trayvon on Retreat View Circle. GZ’s words, “When I walked back towards him, I saw him coming towards me.” They were both on Retreat View Circle.

      Common sense — that explains why Trayvon told Jeantel that he saw the guy again. Common sense — Trayvon walked around to the back of house; to the dog walk and then told Jeantel that the guy was behind him. GZ wasn’t following but going in the same direction — the direction that he told dispatch — to the back gate. He said that when he was told “We don’t need you to do that,” that he was standing on Retreat View Circle.

      At closing, Bernie told the jury that GZ could have taken Retreat View Circle around and back to the dog walk. But, he had no witness to flesh that out with the timing and GZ’s statements. He hoped the jury would use their common sense.

      Maybe — just maybe — our use of common sense spoiled the prosecution and they thought that the jury would use the same common sense. No — I’m not making excuses for the prosecution but ultimately, I believe that with Juror B37 on the panel, it would have made no difference what the prosecution did. She received her instructions from Mark O’Mara during voir dire of what she was to advise the other members of the jury.

      Like

      • All of what you bring back to us, Xena, is so true.

        Yes, we all did use our common sense. However, we also did something that the prosecution did not do. We presented the evidence to each other, but we did not just say, “Use your common sense and figure out why we mentioned this evidence.”

        Instead, we carefully summarized what that evidence MEANT and WHY it incriminated GZ, and we drilled those conclusions in over and over again. (And, of course, there were times when some of us just added more evidence to support the initial point or conclusion of one of our team members.)

        Often, the prosecution did NOT explain the meaning of the evidence they presented + they never gave the jury the time to digest that meaning. The prosecution should have stated that meaning over and over again so that it would sink in and the jury would understand it.

        Like

        • Yahtzee,

          Often, the prosecution did NOT explain the meaning of the evidence they presented + they never gave the jury the time to digest that meaning. The prosecution should have stated that meaning over and over again so that it would sink in and the jury would understand it.

          True, and I think that is what Lisa Bloom brings forth in her book regarding the lack of expert witnesses. What the lawyers say during opening statements and closing arguments is not evidence. I remember when Bernie was questioning witnesses and O’Mara objected on the basis that the witnesses were not experts. Had the prosecution had expert testimony, they could have brought-up-the-rear and drove that testimony home during closing argument.

          It’s now water under the bridge, but America knows and will not forget. I am grateful that Lisa Bloom has made a historical documentation by writing her book.

          Like

  25. “Post-racial America” is a dangerous lie: Why the fantasy is naive, insidious and deadly

    http://www.salon.com/2014/02/25/stop_the_post_racial_fantasy_why_false_optimism_on_race_is_insidious_and_deadly/

    Like

  26. Lolypop,

    They did it in the OJ case and to me that was double jeopardy.

    Right, because double jeopardy only applies to criminal cases. OJ had assets and future possibilities to acquire assets. GZ has nothing and his future is bleak.

    Like

  27. great article and discussion, as always. thank you xena for making this space. i am undecided on whether or not to buy bloom’s book, but this helps. gracias

    Like

    • Hey fauxmccoy! The more reviews I’ve read and the more promotional interviews that I’ve watched, am anxious to begin reading Lisa Bloom’s book. This weekend, I have to setup my new computer and actually want to get some things done before I begin reading because I’m the type of reader where once I start, I don’t want to stop. 🙂

      Like

  28. on.msnbc.com/1hX5mYC

    Like

    • dreamer,
      From the article;

      “I felt naive and dumb from the beginning,” Maddy said. And her gnawing unease mounted each day the trial went on.

      This really saddens me because it’s the juror who doesn’t think they’re smarter than the attorneys and witnesses who are able to think without bias and see the evidence for what it is.

      Like

      • Xena.

        I was trying to post the video that Al Sharpton did with Lisa Bloom, and it didn’t work. One of the things she talks about is that there was a sheriff posted outside Maddy’s room, but none of the other juriors.

        Like

        • dreamer,
          Word Press only provides for videos on Youtube to be embedded. Some videos on news sites have an “embed” code but they do not work on Word Press blogs. Eventually, someone generally gets a video from a news site and converts and puts it on Youtube.

          Like

        • If that had been me, you know I would asked why I was the only one. I am going to have to but the book, it sounds as if there are things we weren’t aware of. I am bothered by the fact that it took 2 years for this to come out, but perhaps that’s just me. I’ll speak up if I have a question or something to say.

          Like

  29. I am confused here…just how many jurors wanted to convict initially?

    Page 19 from Lisa Bloom’s book:

    After ten hours of deliberation they took their first vote. Maddy crushed, voted not guilty, along with another juror who’d initially wanted to convict. Two more continued to hold out for conviction, but Maddy knew it was hopeless. Eventually, after several more hours, the strong voices for acquittal had persuaded all the others.

    Like

  30. Yahtzee,

    I am confused here…just how many jurors wanted to convict initially?

    Three. It appears that the key to understanding who voted for what and when, is in “After ten hours of deliberation they took their first vote.” Comparing that to juror interviews, they took an initial vote before going over anything. Two voted guilty of manslaughter, and Maddy voted guilty of second degree murder. Ten hours later, Maddy caved-in and changed her vote to not guilty.

    IIRC, the jury deliberated 16 hours.

    Maddy said in an interview that she was going to be the juror to hang the jury, giving the impression that she was the final hold-out and not two other jurors.

    Voting not guilty after 10 hours with two other jurors wanting a conviction, wrecks the theory of Zimmerman’s supporters that Maddy being the last hold-out was a stealth juror for the prosecution who caved in.

    What I find most interesting and revealing is, ” … the strong voices for acquittal had persuaded all the others.”

    Keeping in mind that Maddy said the law was told to her, and that in that telling the jury had to find intent in order to convict, it is reasonable to presume that discussion after the ten hours did not address the facts and evidence, but consisted solely on the “strong voices for acquittal” based on a wrong interpretation of the law.

    Like

    • Thanks, Xena. We are certainly being given a different picture now.

      I just came back to post this from p. 31:

      But we know that of the six jurors, four began jury deliberates want to convict (two would have convicted of the top charge of murder, two for the lesser charge of manslaughter) and two to acquit.

      Like

  1. Pingback: Xena, A Fantastic Blogger and Friend | SUPABUTTERFLY

Your comments are welcomed.

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: