How easy to identify a juror in a high profile case?

As many of you know, one of the Zimmerman trial jurors gave an interview to CNN’s Anderson Cooper. She is also suspected of being the juror who has contacted an agent re a book deal.

I watched the interview and the juror was seated in the dark, as per the usual “unidentified person giving an interview” scenario. But you could see she had long hair, appeared slender and apparently used her real voice.

A few questions just to speculate:

Was she wearing a wig? Was she really answering the questions in her own voice or was another person responding to pre-answered questions. (This applies to all these type interviews).

How did the cops sneak the jurors to their secret hotel and back to court every day for over two weeks?

And is it legal in Florida for the press to disclose a jurors identity after the trial?

What do you all think?

Just posted this article in a pit thread on her.

I don’t think they can identify her unless she gives permission. But she’ll have to do that when she publishes her book. I’m sure she was responding in her own voice, which seems to be on the why-the-fuck-was-she-on-the-jury kinda thing.

I will leave that to the Pit of which I am not unfamiliar but still looking for answers about how the cops hide them, hide their voices, general shit like that.

We can have a whole nother debate on “why the fuck was I on the jury?”

And I agree with you. I served on a jury for a felony crime but it had no news coverage. Which also begs the question "if you haven’t heard about this “high profile crime, we want you on the jury”

But if you haven’t heard about the crime, do you live in a cave, and if so, should you be a juror anyway? More questions…

Why? She could publish it under a pseudonym. B37 for example.

I believe prospective jurors should be allowed to hear every bit of media bullshit about a trial before it begins. That is normal. It is NOT normal for example for a particular prospective juror these days to have no internet or whatever is not the normal social scene that most of us have.

During the trial I believe it is fair for the jurors not to hear the media bullshit

like Robert Galbraith lol…

That would be an extremely bad idea. Especially since the various media outlets out there make their money off of sensationalism.

I hear you, but is it worse than having a person so isolated that they have never heard of the current trial du jour? sp

That they will judge? What do we do?

I’m sure someone would leak her name, not necessarily her address. Hell, someone might take a photo of her license plate leaving Penguin Publishing. :smiley:

But transportation during trial, I don’t know. Maybe a decoy van with a banner on the side saying, “Follow this van to meet jurors!”??

If her hair looked blue in the dark silhouette on occasion, probably not a wig in them parts. :wink:

In any case, I think she dropped the book idea. Probably one too many death threats.

What she describes in her interview is an almost textbook version of how we expect a jury to work: initially, several jurors wanted to “find him guilty of something.” But as they parsed the instructions and the law, they realized there was “no other place to go” but a not-guilty verdict.