Serving on a jury takes an incredible amount of time and energy for which the
state provides little more compensation than what is needed to cover expenses.
I do not begrudge a single juror the opportunity to make some money from the
affair by opening a window into the process for the rest of us to see and
I wonder why the first juror did not allow her face to be shown (she voted for
the verdict) and the second juror freely showed her face on tv. Repercussions?
@toosmartforyouWere you complaining about the first juror to speak out
about the trial who actually did have a book deal lined up (complaints to the
publisher made them pull it though)? Or was the fact that juror was for
acquittal from the start make her speaking out okay?
Intimidation is strong and powerful.Wives and mothers generally do not
have the privilege of much free time. Their families, and perhaps their jobs are
waiting, and not waiting patiently.Bullying may be a bit too strong of a
word, but readers can get the drift of the sorrow felt by this juror at the
"wrong verdict".The hour is getting late, the public(turns out it
was the world) waiting for the decision....there is a group of jurors who are
anxious to get the show on the road and get the whole thing over with. They know
in their hearts the whole trial is off kilter, something is wrong, the choices
"do not fit the crime" It is too difficult to find the correct way to
come back to the judge with a decision.One or two of the jurors are
somewhat aggressive, making the other jurors feel rushed and
uncomfortable.......Some of the jurors do not feel that they are able to stand
up to the "stronger" jurors and express their opinions. Some of these
jurors want to get back home(turns out one juror thought she had a deal to
write a book)....Understandable now......
Judgement based on emotions are not accurate. A person is innocent until proven
guilty.Cannot form opinions based on media reporting, as the facts
are often distorted.Added research, and common sense must prevail.
In fact, looking at the evidence and what was presented in trial, the prosecutor
tanked the case. There were more than enough facts to support a verdict of
manslaughter, AND sufficient facts to argue second degree murder. The
prosecutor neither presented the evidence or properly prepared and protected his
witnesses. For whatever reason, and I can't even begin to guess why, the
prosecutor "threw" the case. I have litigated in court, an know how
it's supposed to be done. The prosecutor didn't do it. As a result,
due to the incompetent prosecution, the jury could find only one verdict -- not
guilty. As a result, Rasmussen was found not guilty at law. Like O.J. Simpson,
he got away with murder. And that's sad.
Rocket Science at work." but that there wasn't enough evidence at trial
to convict him under Florida law." Well Duh! I think that says not guilty.
The prosecution had no case, but this woman got scared by public opinion and
emotion and decided to cave to it. I have no respect for her. This case should
never have even been charged and she has just muddied the waters even more.
I think that this is disgusting behavior from a member of the jury, who
obviously just wants her 15 minutes of fame. This man was judged by a jury of
his peers and found innocent. I believe that jury members have the obligation
to keep things confidential even after the event has long gone. I am sick of
the way some jury members get fame and at times fortune from writing books and
appearing on TV shows after famous or infamous trials. This has got to stop.
One of the reasons "the evidence wasn't there" was because Zimmers
plead the 5th, his right, you bet. The fact that he told different tales
numerous times was the reason the defense would never place him on the stand.He was an unreliable witness, even though he was present, is another way of
saying he's less than honest.Neither of these punks were
innocent of the childish behavior that ended with one dead, but to chalk this up
as one for the good guys is incredibly naive.
what a hoax!It sounds like she wanted to convict him just because.in
her own words "there was not enough evidence"That means NOT
This is water under the bridge.This juror voted as she was legally
bound. When she was called as a juror she was given rules to operate by and she
did.The prosecution was weak, and wobbled towards the end of the
trial, this juror was not at fault and did was she was legally bound to do.
Having been on a jury that was deliberating a case that involved a death I
understand the emotional rollercoaster that you ride through the trial and
during the aftermath. Even though it was several years ago, I still revisit
those feelings. But in the end it all came to the same question of what does the
evidence show? Is there proof of guilt beyond any reasonable doubt? I like my
fellow jurors had to bury my feelings and look only at the evidence presented by
the attorneys and witnesses. And this trial was the same as many others
before it. I am glad that this juror admitted that the evidence for a conviction
wasn't there and that she was able to bury her feelings and make a decision
based on the evidence.
Maybe O.J. ought to apologize too, you think?Who this lady needs to
apologize to are the American People because she has just set back the jury
system a great deal, proving that emotion and media agendas are more important
than evidence. Look for her to do other things to increase her popularity, such
as write a book and feel badly "all the way to the bank."She
did expose the one problem with the jury system--one juror with a preconceived
outcome can literally ruin the whole system of justice and the rule of law,
especially when encouraged by the liberal media types in this country.
American justice is based on allowing a number of people who are guilty to go
free so that an innocent person will not be convicted of a crime. The scales of
justice are tilted towards freedom from prosecution. This isn't right or
wrong, it's just how our Founding Fathers preferred justice to be in this