Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more ➡
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Add note
Save to My Library
Sync to mobile
Look up keyword
Like this
3Activity
×
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Juror B37 Interview - Anlysis B. Did the Stand Your Ground Law get improperly introduced into the Jury and did it improperly influence the verdict?

Juror B37 Interview - Anlysis B. Did the Stand Your Ground Law get improperly introduced into the Jury and did it improperly influence the verdict?

Ratings: (0)|Views: 244|Likes:
Published by Charlie Grapski
The recent revelations of Juror B37 in the trial of George Zimmerman raised serious questions about "The Stand Your Ground Law" in this trial.

Not about the general concerns being raised about the law - but about whether that law was properly instructed to the Jury - or even given to the Jury - and whether at least one member of the Jury introduced into their deliberations knowledge of that law brought from outside the Court and Trial as well as whether the Court itself may have added to the confusion with its language in its instruction.

This is just a set of notes and raw analysis - but I offer it to anyone interested in conducting their own analysis - in the interests of trying to better understand what happened, how, and why in that Jury process to lead to this particular verdict.

Even though this is but a "first" round of analysis - and I will look more generally at the whole of Juror B37's interview - I believe my identification of the TWO KEY statements - and my analysis of what they entail - support two conclusions (and although I remain open to testing these - my cursory analysis of the rest of the interview does not seem to indicate any reason to suggest it will be undermined but only further supported if not reinforced).

Actually I think a third key conclusion can be added to those two - and I will state that first: It is undeniable that this Jury was so confused as to the law, and that the Jury Instructions only added to and contributed to that confusion, that I do not believe they can be considered to have "properly deliberated." [CAUTION: This cannot - and ought not - therefore lead to a reversal of the verdict and a new trial. Regardless of one's position on the proper verdict - such a process would be a grave affront to the concept of Justice generally].

Now here are the two conclusions I refer to:

1) The Jury had some information introduced into its deliberations, in particular with regard to the controversial "Stand YOur Ground Law" that was not derived from either the Trial or the Court's instructions - and came from at least one juror's prior, out of court, experience. This would be inappropriate.

2) The Court's own instructions improperly allude to the charged language of that controversial law - and its inclusion of that language and the concept of that law (without that law being formally invoked by the defense nor that status granted to the defendant by the Court) - and in this resulted in the language of the Jury instructions being self-conflicting and self-contradicting - and as such contributed significantly to the Jury's confusion as to the law that they were charged with applying was.

And a more GENERAL CONCLUSION is as follows:

Although officially the controversial "Stand Your Ground Law" was never invoked in this case and thus never applied to this trial - the above factors demonstrate clearly that it not only played a significant part in the verdict - but was THE KEY DETERMINING FACTOR in the not guilty verdict.

And this should raise concerns to all concerned with the law and with its end of Justice.

I present this to anyone - in the interest of further analysis as well as critical public discourse on this topic. Feel free to read and use my analysis as you see fit - including offering criticisms or other additional points.
The recent revelations of Juror B37 in the trial of George Zimmerman raised serious questions about "The Stand Your Ground Law" in this trial.

Not about the general concerns being raised about the law - but about whether that law was properly instructed to the Jury - or even given to the Jury - and whether at least one member of the Jury introduced into their deliberations knowledge of that law brought from outside the Court and Trial as well as whether the Court itself may have added to the confusion with its language in its instruction.

This is just a set of notes and raw analysis - but I offer it to anyone interested in conducting their own analysis - in the interests of trying to better understand what happened, how, and why in that Jury process to lead to this particular verdict.

Even though this is but a "first" round of analysis - and I will look more generally at the whole of Juror B37's interview - I believe my identification of the TWO KEY statements - and my analysis of what they entail - support two conclusions (and although I remain open to testing these - my cursory analysis of the rest of the interview does not seem to indicate any reason to suggest it will be undermined but only further supported if not reinforced).

Actually I think a third key conclusion can be added to those two - and I will state that first: It is undeniable that this Jury was so confused as to the law, and that the Jury Instructions only added to and contributed to that confusion, that I do not believe they can be considered to have "properly deliberated." [CAUTION: This cannot - and ought not - therefore lead to a reversal of the verdict and a new trial. Regardless of one's position on the proper verdict - such a process would be a grave affront to the concept of Justice generally].

Now here are the two conclusions I refer to:

1) The Jury had some information introduced into its deliberations, in particular with regard to the controversial "Stand YOur Ground Law" that was not derived from either the Trial or the Court's instructions - and came from at least one juror's prior, out of court, experience. This would be inappropriate.

2) The Court's own instructions improperly allude to the charged language of that controversial law - and its inclusion of that language and the concept of that law (without that law being formally invoked by the defense nor that status granted to the defendant by the Court) - and in this resulted in the language of the Jury instructions being self-conflicting and self-contradicting - and as such contributed significantly to the Jury's confusion as to the law that they were charged with applying was.

And a more GENERAL CONCLUSION is as follows:

Although officially the controversial "Stand Your Ground Law" was never invoked in this case and thus never applied to this trial - the above factors demonstrate clearly that it not only played a significant part in the verdict - but was THE KEY DETERMINING FACTOR in the not guilty verdict.

And this should raise concerns to all concerned with the law and with its end of Justice.

I present this to anyone - in the interest of further analysis as well as critical public discourse on this topic. Feel free to read and use my analysis as you see fit - including offering criticisms or other additional points.

More info:

Categories:Business/Law
Published by: Charlie Grapski on Jul 16, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See More
See less

07/17/2013

pdf

text

original

 
JurorB37Interview(AndersonCooper)–StandYourGroundAnalysisDirectReferences:2
JUROR: It became very confusing. We had stuff thrown at us. Wehad the second-degree murder charge, the manslaughter charge,then we had self-defense, stand your ground, and I think there wasone other one. But the manslaughter case -- we actually had gotten itdown to manslaughter, because the second degree, it wasn't atsecond degree anymore.
JUROR: Right. Well, because of the heat of the moment and thestand your ground. He had a right to defend himself. If he feltthreatened that his life was going to be taken away from him or hewas going to have bodily harm, he had a right.
AreviewoftheJuryInstructionsraisesarelevantissuetothis.TheJuryinstructionsastoselfdefense("justifiableuseofdeadlyforce")inmyviewishighlyquestionable-becauseitinvokesthe"language"oftheStandYourGroundlaw-andevenusesthehighlychargedphrase"hadtherighttostandhisground".AlthoughFloridaStatute776.012-Useofforceindefenseofperson-incorporatesthe"theory"and"intent"behindthiscontroversiallaw-innoplacedoesitmakereferenceto"therightto>>standhisground<<."Thislanguageispoliticallychargedlanguage-ratherthantheactualstatutorylanguage-andIbelievehadnoplaceinthe"standardjuryinstruction"orinthejuryinstructionactuallygiven.Thestatute'slanguage,asproblematicasitis,clearlydoesnotmakereferencetothe"politicaldescription"ofthislaw:"However,apersonisjustifiedintheuseofdeadlyforceanddoesnothaveadutytoretreatif:(1)Heorshereasonablybelievesthatsuchforceisnecessarytopreventimminentdeathorgreatbodilyharmtohimselforherselforanotherortopreventtheimminentcommissionofaforciblefelony;or"Incorporationofthisjuryinstructionintothisanalysisraisestwoquestionsofconcern:
 
1)Ifthedefensedidnotrelyuponorinvokethe"StandYourGroundLaw"-wasitappropriateforeitherthisconceptorthislanguagetobegiventothejury.EspeciallyastheywereNOTexplicitlyinstructedinthatlawspecifically.Thisgoestopotentialbiasofthejuryintroducedbytheinstructions-andthenegationofthewidelyassumedclaimthatStandYourGroundwasnotinvoked,evenifindirectly,inthiscase.Andsoitdoesraisetheissueofthatlaw'sappropriatenessnotjustgenerally-butinthistrialparticularly.Yesterday-bytheway-Ispentacoupleofhours"reflecting"onwhatitwouldtaketobringasuccessfulconstitutionalchallengeagainstthatlaw.Theoddityofthislaw-itisnotastatutethatestablishesacriminaloffense(andthuswhatisnotsuchanoffense)butastatutethatprovidesanimmunityfromprosecutionforexistingstatutorycrimes.Asperverseasthisisonitsface-itmakesitveryhardtodirectlyattack-inalegalcontextwherejusticereallyisnotconsidered"law"byCourts-whoinsteadbelievethattheyarelimitedtofixatinguponactuallanguageinpositivelaw.TheonegroundIbelieveisopenforarealpossibilityofConstitutionalchallenge(thatcan"succeed"intoday'slegalcontext)isonebasedonthePrinciple,Doctrine,andexplicitLanguage(Constitutional)ofEQUALPROTECTIONUNDERTHELAW.Asanylawyerorlegalscholarmustadmit-ifalegislatureenactedacriminalstatutethatONLYAPPLIEDTOONECLASSofpeople-ratherthanuniversally(atalltimestoallpeople)-itwouldnotwithstandevenamomentof(honest)judicialscrutiny.Itwouldbeasclosetoanopenandshutcaseaspossible(theexceptiontotherule-beingifaCourtwillinglyignored"theLaw"-whichhas,attimes,occurred).But,becauseStandYourGroundineffecthastobeinvokedbyadefendant,asadefense(notdoneinthiscase)andexplicitlygrantedbytheCourtasavaliddefense(notdoneinthiscase-explicitly).SeethecontroversialcaseofMarissaAlexander.Shehadwhatisperhapsareasonableclaimtoinvokethislaw'simmunitiesandprotections,andheractionscausedactualharmtonoone,yetaCourtdeniedherclaimtoinvokeitsstatus.First-thisintroducestheinstitutionalbiasesofthosewhobothknownandcanaffordproperrepresentationinthesystem-notmerelytodeterminetheirguilt,buttodeterminewhatconstitutesanoffense(orabasisforinnocence).Ithinkbecausethisisasortof"back-door"immunityfromstandinglaws-thefactthatitisgrantedinsomecases,andnotinothers-raisesavalidandviableequalprotectionclaim.2)Evenwiththisconceptincluded-andevenwiththisoutofcontext(notintherelevantstatutetothatjuryinstruction)ofthespecificphrasing-theparticularlanguagethatJurorB37usesisnotderivedfromthisjuryinstruction-butbetraysapre-existingknowledgeoftheStandYourGroundlaw,specifically,and
 
presumptionsaboutwhatitentails,broughtintotheJurydeliberationsbysomeone(andthusfairlycertainlybyoneoftheJurors).Nowthisiswhereamorecarefulanalysisofherstatementslastnightbecomeimportant.AndIhavebegunthis.Uponinitialreview-Ifindtwothingsofsignificance:1)JurorB37makesEXPLICITREFERENCEtothe"StandYourGround"LAWtwice-intheformofusingthosethreewordtogether-and2)indicatingherunderstanding/beliefthatitwas"alaw"-ratherthanamerephrasewithintheseparate,"self-defense"law-citedabove.I'llgetbackwithmorewhenIhaveachance-butherearethetwomomentsIreferencefromtheinterview.(A)JUROR:Itbecameveryconfusing.Wehadstuffthrownatus.Wehadthesecond-degreemurdercharge,themanslaughtercharge,thenwehadself-defense,standyourground,andIthinktherewasoneotherone.Butthemanslaughtercase--weactuallyhadgottenitdowntomanslaughter,becausetheseconddegree,itwasn'tatseconddegreeanymore.(B)JUROR:Right.Well,becauseoftheheatofthemomentandthestandyourground.Hehadarighttodefendhimself.Ifhefeltthreatenedthathislifewasgoingtobetakenawayfromhimorhewasgoingtohavebodilyharm,hehadaright.NOTE:Thatin(A)above-shespecificallystatesthattheJurywasgiven(or"had...throwat"them)severallawstoconsider(Ipreviouslystated4-butshestates5nowthatIcanreadit):1)2ndDegreeMurder;2)Manslaughter;3)Self-Defense;AND(andthisandiskey-becauseshedistinguishes3and4-astwoindividualandindependentlaws)"StandYourGround";and5)"Ithinktherewasoneotherone."Alsoofextremesignificance-isthatthisisstatedinthefurthertroublingcontextofstatingthatthejury"wasconfused"astowhatthelawwas.AndthismeansthattheCourtfailed-initsjuryinstructions-toproperlypreparethatjurytodeliberate.Furthermorein(B)sheconnectstwoelements"intheheatofthemoment"(anactofpassionoremotionissuggestedbythislanguage)and"THEstandyourground".Iaddtheemphasisonthedefinitivearticle"the"-becauseitisareferencetoa"thing"-andthusnotareferencetothemerephrasecontainedinthejuryinstructionson"selfdefense"(whichthisJurorclearlyindicatessheunderstoodasDISTINCTANDDIFFERENTFROM"thestandyourground[law]")-butwhilethissentenceisnotcomplete-itshows,byinvocationanduseofthatdefinitivearticle,thatshewas

Activity (3)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
Charlie Grapski added this note|
Juror B37 Interview Analysis. Was Stand Your Ground improperly introduced & improperly influence verdict? http://goo.gl/KjzCr FIX
1 hundred reads
Charlie Grapski liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->