Juror says she owes Martin's parents apology

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Eliot Santaquin, UT
    July 26, 2013 2:02 p.m.

    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 understand.

  • ipr Spanish Fork, UT
    July 26, 2013 12:50 p.m.

    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?

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    July 26, 2013 11:28 a.m.

    Were 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?

  • no fit in SG St.George, Utah
    July 26, 2013 10:32 a.m.

    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......

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    July 26, 2013 10:17 a.m.

    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.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    July 26, 2013 9:21 a.m.

    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.

  • mohokat Ogden, UT
    July 26, 2013 8:50 a.m.

    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.

  • Cats Somewhere in Time, UT
    July 26, 2013 8:50 a.m.

    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.

  • Jim Mesa, Az
    July 26, 2013 8:49 a.m.

    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.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    July 26, 2013 8:40 a.m.

    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.

  • Ifel Of'a-sofa Alpine, Utah
    July 26, 2013 7:47 a.m.

    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 GUILTY lady!

  • Doug10 Roosevelt, UT
    July 26, 2013 6:46 a.m.

    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.

  • techpubs Sioux City, IA
    July 26, 2013 6:42 a.m.

    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.

  • toosmartforyou Farmington, UT
    July 25, 2013 11:56 p.m.

    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.

  • tabuno Clearfield, UT
    July 25, 2013 10:38 p.m.

    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 Country.