# Martin/Zimmerman: humble opinions and speculation thread **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [April 18, 2012, 4:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125 "2012-04-18T04:41:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 455
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2012, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/9083 "2012-12-12T18:05:48Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > I take issue with the continued assumption by many people in this and other threads that since they personally believe the evidence doesn’t justify a conviction that GZ will not be convicted. This seems to fly in the face of logic. > > What you’ve seen in these threads is that - however right you may think you are - there are any number of other people who passionately disagree. There are some posters to this thread who, were they on the jury, would vote to convict on the most severe charges possible. So it all boils down to who is on the jury. > > Which is something of a crapshoot. But the prosecution has the upper hand here. Because they would have a much easier time stacking the jury with African Americans than the defense would have in excluding them. And African Americans are the group most predisposed to convict GZ. It’ll be overturned at appeal if either of those things happen, and Zimmerman would have a good chance of suing the state. A jury cannot convict on the evidence we’ve seen, so if they do the judge is at fault either for not instructing them correctly, or for allowing the trial to proceed when there’s no evidence. As for a majority black jury, that would obviously not be a fair trial (unless that particular jurisdiction has a majority black population, in which case it is _possibly_ defensible). ---
**Author:** ![Mgalindo13](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ea5d25/32.png) [@Mgalindo13](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mgalindo13)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2012, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/9084 "2012-12-12T18:13:37Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > I take issue with the continued assumption by many people in this and other threads that since they personally believe the evidence doesn’t justify a conviction that GZ will not be convicted. This seems to fly in the face of logic. > > What you’ve seen in these threads is that - however right you may think you are - there are any number of other people who passionately disagree. There are some posters to this thread who, were they on the jury, would vote to convict on the most severe charges possible. So it all boils down to who is on the jury. > > Which is something of a crapshoot. But the prosecution has the upper hand here. Because they would have a much easier time stacking the jury with African Americans than the defense would have in excluding them. And African Americans are the group most predisposed to convict GZ. I take issue with your assertion that African Americans can’t follow the courts instructions on the legal aspects of the case and make a sound decision based on the facts in evidence. If an individual seems not to be able to do that (regardless of race) they will hopefully be removed from the jury during voir dire. Further, if a jury convicts with a lack of evidence it’s possible we could see the judge set aside the conviction. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2012, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/9085 "2012-12-12T18:22:10Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > As for a majority black jury, that would obviously not be a fair trial (unless that particular jurisdiction has a majority black population, in which case it is _possibly_ defensible). I don’t know that you need a majority. Just a core who feel very strongly about it. > [@Mgalindo13](#): > > I take issue with your assertion that African Americans can’t follow the courts instructions on the legal aspects of the case and make a sound decision based on the facts in evidence. Well you can take comfort in the fact that I’ve not made any such assertion. But it’s a general tendency of human beings of all ethnicities to be biased about things that they have strong feelings about. This particular case happens to be one which many African Americans have very strong feelings about. This should be obvious to anyone who is following the case even slightly. > [@](#): > > If an individual seems not to be able to do that (regardless of race) they will hopefully be removed from the jury during voir dire. IMO that’s naive. By way of example, I don’t think the OJ jurors were capable of dealing with the evidence and facts in that case. They were not removed. > [@](#): > > Further, if a jury convicts with a lack of evidence it’s possible we could see the judge set aside the conviction. As above, I think this is extremely unlikely, for political reasons. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2012, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/9086 "2012-12-12T18:54:53Z")
Politically, the best thing would be to have a jury that would acquit him. That way, justice would have been done, and the idiots who don’t want justice can’t blame the judge or prosecutor. I’d hope the judge isn’t cowardly enough to let it get that far, assuming there is no new evidence, but I don’t expect it. I also think the chances of a neutral jury unanimously finding him guilty, again based on the evidence currently available, are extremely slim. ---
**Author:** ![Mgalindo13](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ea5d25/32.png) [@Mgalindo13](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mgalindo13)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2012, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/9087 "2012-12-12T19:00:48Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > By way of example, I don’t think the OJ jurors were capable of dealing with the evidence and facts in that case. They were not removed. As a society we generally accept the a possibly guilty man being set free, but completely reject the idea that an innocent man being sent to prison. The OJ case is a very poor example, he wasn’t convicted because of a juries bias. And a judge can’t set aside an acquittal, and there is no type of appeal process for the prosecution. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2012, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/9088 "2012-12-12T19:02:35Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > If Corey is holding it back, she is running a very real risk of not having it admitted at trial, since she is supposed to turn any such evidence to defense in a “timely” manner. If it can be shown that she didn’t, I think (the lawyers here will correct me if I am wrong, I am sure) it will not be admissible. Maybe. In general, questions about admissibility of evidence, and the remedies available if discovery obligations are not honored, rests within the discretion of the trial court judge. No question about it: a typical remedy for failure to timely disclose would be the suppression of the evidence at trial. But it’s not an unbreakable rule. The prosecution might argue that the defense suffered no prejudice and so their error was harmless. If the judge buys that argument, then the evidence could be admitted anyway. So there’s no _per se_ requirement of exclusion – but in this case, since we’re talking about some kind of killer factual setup that makes the case for the prosecution, it’s hard for me to imagine how the prosecution might also credibly claim the defense was not prejudiced by not having the information in a timely manner. ---
**Author:** ![Saraya](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b3f665/32.png) [@Saraya](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saraya)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2012, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/9089 "2012-12-12T19:03:35Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > But it’s a general tendency of human beings of all ethnicities to be biased about things that they have strong feelings about. Uh white people don’t seem to have this problem unless they are of course driven daily by a motivation of race e.g. white supremacists. On the other hand ‘ethnic’ races have this inability to get past the issue of race in nearly everything they do. > [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > This particular case happens to be one which many African Americans have very strong feelings about. This should be obvious to anyone who is following the case even slightly. If black people made this case about race, that’s their own problem and has nothing to do with justice. > [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > IMO that’s naive. Got that right. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2012, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/9090 "2012-12-12T19:14:00Z")
> [@Mgalindo13](#): > > The OJ case is a very poor example, he wasn’t convicted because of a juries bias. He was aquitted because the jury was predisposed to find credible the idea of a vast police conspiracy to frame a successful black man. > [@](#): > > And a judge can’t set aside an acquittal, and there is no type of appeal process for the prosecution. I was responding to your assertion that: > [@](#): > > If an individual seems not to be able to do that (regardless of race) they will hopefully be removed from the jury during voir dire. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2012, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/9091 "2012-12-12T19:20:32Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Because they would have a much easier time stacking the jury with African Americans than the defense would have in excluding them. And African Americans are the group most predisposed to convict GZ. Specifically how would the prosecution do that, and why would they have an easier time than the defense in that endeavor? ---
**Author:** ![Mgalindo13](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ea5d25/32.png) [@Mgalindo13](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mgalindo13)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2012, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/9092 "2012-12-12T19:30:46Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > He was aquitted because the jury was predisposed to find credible the idea of a vast police conspiracy to frame a successful black man. Again… we accept that it’s better to set a guilty man free than to convict an innocent man. While the juries actions in the OJ case may be questionable, it’s not the same scenario as a man being convicted without any credible evidence. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2012, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/9093 "2012-12-12T19:38:12Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Specifically how would the prosecution do that I don’t know anything about Florida specifically, but my general understanding is that attorneys for each side have the ability to challenge potential jurors based on certain valid grounds which have to pass muster with the judge, but they have the option of challenging or passing on such jurors, and they can decide what to do based on whether they think a given juror would be predisposed to favor their case or not. In addition, they get a limited number of free passes to challenge potential jurors without giving a reason. I’m not an expert on any of this. But one way or another, it’s widely reported that attorneys can influence jury selection. And jury selection consultants are paid for a reason. Do you disagree with any of this? > [@](#): > > and why would they have an easier time than the defense in that endeavor? There’s a lot more political sensitivity to underrepresentation of minorities on juries than there is to overrepresentation. And this case is already racially sensitive. > [@Mgalindo13](#): > > Again… we accept that it’s better to set a guilty man free than to convict an innocent man. The reason I ignored this before is because it has nothing to do with my point. > [@](#): > > While the juries actions in the OJ case may be questionable, it’s not the same scenario as a man being convicted without any credible evidence. IMO it’s the exact same thing. What counts as “credible evidence” or not is highly subjective, as evidenced by strongly held opinions on opposite sides of the same issue, in this thread and elsewhere. ---
**Author:** ![Mgalindo13](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ea5d25/32.png) [@Mgalindo13](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mgalindo13)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2012, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/9094 "2012-12-12T20:06:53Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > The reason I ignored this before is because it has nothing to do with my point. If you don’t understand the relevance to your point (that the OJ trial is an example of jury bias) or the case as a whole then I think we’re at an impasse. ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2012, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/9095 "2012-12-12T20:22:37Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > I take issue with the continued assumption by many people in this and other threads that since they personally believe the evidence doesn’t justify a conviction that GZ will not be convicted. This seems to fly in the face of logic. > > What you’ve seen in these threads is that - however right you may think you are - there are any number of other people who passionately disagree. There are some posters to this thread who, were they on the jury, would vote to convict on the most severe charges possible. So it all boils down to who is on the jury. > > Which is something of a crapshoot. But the prosecution has the upper hand here. Because they would have a much easier time stacking the jury with African Americans than the defense would have in excluding them. And African Americans are the group most predisposed to convict GZ. You should look at the demographics of Seminole County. Looking at straight percentages, we would end up with one black person on the jury. We might end up with none. Even a couple of black people could at most hang the jury, even we accept your assumption that Black people will not be able to process the evidence dispassionately, we would end up with a hung jury. The actual surveys in Florida show that most Black people support the SYG laws. ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2012, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/9096 "2012-12-12T20:34:57Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > Holding back or witholding exculpatory evidence would help her case. This ain’t Corey’s first rodeo. Even the lynch-mob media seemed to back off once she was appointed (and “suggested” that they back off and let the law run it’s course) and she’s even threatened to sue the Harvard Law School. She has a history of being able to get convictions, is very intimidating, and has a lot of influencial friends. I’m sure she knows how far she can push an issue before she gets her hand officially slapped by the court. She may be hoping for a plea to a lessor charge or assuming that she can find a jury that will find for 2nd degree??? Maybe she’s hoping GZ will break down and confess??? I’ve read you post and I discern anything that supports the idea that she would withhold evidence that is favorable to her case. ---
**Author:** ![Jack\_Batty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jack_batty/32/3201_2.png) [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2012, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/9097 "2012-12-12T20:54:03Z")
Now that we’ve figured out how many blacks should be allowed on the jury in order to serve justice, can we come to a consensus on how many gun owners should be on the jury? Don’t want any scales tipping here, now do we? ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2012, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/9098 "2012-12-12T21:04:32Z")
> [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > You should look at the demographics of Seminole County. Looking at straight percentages, we would end up with one black person on the jury. We might end up with none. Even a couple of black people could at most hang the jury, even we accept your assumption that Black people will not be able to process the evidence dispassionately, we would end up with a hung jury. To be clear, I’m not making a blanket statement that “Black people will not be able to process the evidence dispassionately”, but I do think that randomly selected black people are more likely to be committed to GZ’s guilt in this case. [As you may recall, one of the FL papers did an article about the case, and they interviewed one of the black neighbors who was supportive of GZ. But she refused to allow her (last?) name to be used, because of strong feelings in the community.) There are any number of others who are also predisposed to find GZ guilty, i.e. liberals. I mentioned black people because it would easier for attorneys involved in jury selection to focus on them, however. I’ve noted earlier that a determined minority can outweigh a less committed majority. > [@Jack\_Batty](#): > > Now that we’ve figured out how many blacks should be allowed on the jury in order to serve justice, can we come to a consensus on how many gun owners should be on the jury? Don’t want any scales tipping here, now do we? Probably some truth in this. I would guess lawyers will ask about attitudes to gun ownership and related questions, and my guess is that the prosecution will be disinclined to allow too many gun owners if they can prevent it. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2012, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/9099 "2012-12-12T21:37:25Z")
> [@Jack\_Batty](#): > > Now that we’ve figured out how many blacks should be allowed on the jury in order to serve justice, can we come to a consensus on how many gun owners should be on the jury? Don’t want any scales tipping here, now do we? Anyone who’s attitudes toward guns would make them unable to dispassionately decide on this case should be excluded from the jury. My suspicion is it wouldn’t be gun owners that would be the majority excluded by that rule, though. ---
**Author:** ![Jack\_Batty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jack_batty/32/3201_2.png) [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2012, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/9100 "2012-12-12T21:48:19Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > Anyone who’s attitudes toward guns would make them unable to dispassionately decide on this case should be excluded from the jury. > > My suspicion is it wouldn’t be gun owners that would be the majority excluded by that rule, though. Yes, because only non-gun owners have strong opinions on gun-ownership. Makes perfect sense. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2012, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/9101 "2012-12-12T22:17:25Z")
> [@Jack\_Batty](#): > > Yes, because only non-gun owners have strong opinions on gun-ownership. Makes perfect sense. I suspect anti-gun people (who are almost entirely non gun-owners) are more likely to want to convict despite the evidence than gun owners would be. It’s certainly the case in this thread, with people claiming that his (legally) carrying a gun somehow shows malicious intent. I’ve not seen anyone taking the opposite position - that is, that because guns are good, he should be let off even if he’s provably guilty. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2012, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/9102 "2012-12-12T22:53:44Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > I don’t know anything about Florida specifically, but my general understanding is that attorneys for each side have the ability to challenge potential jurors based on certain valid grounds which have to pass muster with the judge, but they have the option of challenging or passing on such jurors, and they can decide what to do based on whether they think a given juror would be predisposed to favor their case or not. In addition, they get a limited number of free passes to challenge potential jurors without giving a reason. > . they have limited say in this but that can’t keep spinning the roulette wheel until only black people come up. What is more likely in Florida is a healthy choice of Hispanic jurists. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125.md?page=454) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125.md?page=456)