Could Juror B29 have stood her ground?
theGRIO REPORT - When she went public in an on-camera interview with ABC News, the juror in the George Zimmerman trial previously known only as B29 addressed a lot of questions including the most obvious one...
When she went public in an on-camera interview with ABC News, the juror in the George Zimmerman trial previously known only as B29 addressed a lot of questions including the most obvious one: should she have stuck to her convictions if she believed Zimmerman was guilty of murder?
Zimmerman was acquitted of the charges of second-degree murder and manslaughter in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin. He said he shot Martin in self-defense after the teen attacked him.
Related: Trayvon Martin’s parents “devastated” by Juror B29 revelations
The 36-year-old certified nursing assistant and mother of eight identified as “Maddy” says she “was the juror that was gonna give them the hung jury,” and that she “fought to the end.” Ultimately, however, she says she couldn’t find any justification in Florida law to convict Zimmerman, who she now says “got away with murder” in the killing of Trayvon Martin, adding, “but you can’t get away from God.”
Was she confused about the law?
On the surface, some of Maddy’s statements seem contradictory. She told ABC News Anchor Robin Roberts: “For myself, he’s guilty, because the evidence shows that he’s guilty, [of] killing Trayvon Martin. But as the law was read to me, if you have no proof that he killed him intentionally, you can’t say he’s guilty.”
In fact, Florida’s second degree murder statute does not require that a killing be intentional, but rather is defined as: “The unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual.”
And under Florida law, manslaughter, the leaser included charge Zimmerman faced, is defined as: “The killing of a human being by the act, procurement, or culpable negligence of another, without lawful justification according to the provisions of chapter 776 and in cases in which such killing shall not be excusable homicide or murder.”
However, the jury instructions in the Zimmerman trial read differently. Jurors were told they could find Zimmerman guilty of second degree murder if:
-Trayvon Martin is dead.
-The death was caused by the criminal act of George Zimmerman.
– There was an unlawful killing of Trayvon Martin by an act imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind without regard for human life.
And they could find him guilty of manslaughter if they found that:
– Trayvon Martin is dead.
– George Zimmerman intentionally committed an act or acts that caused the death of Trayvon Martin.
However the jury was instructed that “Zimmerman cannot be found guilty of manslaughter if the killing of a human being is excusable, and therefore lawful, under any one of the following circumstances:
–When the killing is committed by accident and misfortune in doing any lawful act by lawful means with usual ordinary caution and without any unlawful intent, or
–When the killing occurs by accident and misfortune in the heat of passion, upon any sudden and sufficient provocation.”
In addition, the jurors were given an explanation of the “justifiable use of deadly force:
“An issue in this case is whether George Zimmerman acted in self-defense. It is a defense to the crime of Second Degree Murder, and the lesser-included offense of Manslaughter, if the death of Trayvon Martin resulted from the justifiable use of deadly force.
‘Deadly force’ means force likely to cause death or great bodily harm.
A person is justified in using deadly force if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself.”
Kendall Coffey, a former U.S. attorney for the southern district of Florida, says instructions and legal language can be confusing to a jury.
“Jury instructions can create confusion,” he says. “And it’s incumbent on jurors to seek clarification if possible.”
In fact, after nine hours of deliberations on Saturday, July 14th, the Zimmerman jury sent a note to the judge asking for clarification of the manslaughter statute. After consulting with the lawyers for both sides, the judge sent the jurors a reply that said the court cannot engage in “general discussions” on the charge, and added, “If you have a specific question please submit it.” The jury never did. The next time the court heard from the jury was to render the verdict a few hours later.
Coffey says that while jury deliberations can be a high-pressure situation, jurors are asked to weigh the evidence and that as a juror, “you’re not supposed to surrender your beliefs.”
Next: Was she bullied?
