Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

40ish and beyond... 40ish and beyond...

Why were there only 6 jurors selected instead of 12? Why all women? Why no blacks only one Hispanic? What year are we in 2013 or 1957?

Posted by on Jul. 16, 2013 at 10:38 AM
  • 42 Replies
  • 949 Total Views
1 mom liked this

I am truly upset about the Travyonne Martin case, I am trying to understand the jury selection. Why didn't the prosecutor demand a more diverse jury? Why only 6 jurors instead of 12? Everyone listened to the tapes. That was not the scream of a grown man. Why would a grown man scream like that when he knew he had a gun? 

I believe that jury selections need to be taken to the supreme court. It should be mandatory that jurors are all different races and genders. There should have been atleast one black on the jury since there was one Hispanic.Why were there no men? Doesn't the prosecution get to accept or deny jurors. This entire thing seems like a set up to me from beginning to end. I feel like our society is sliding back towards an ugly time in our history. It makes me sad....

by on Jul. 16, 2013 at 10:38 AM
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Replies (1-10):
Mariagma3
by Wild Midwest Lady on Jul. 16, 2013 at 10:39 AM
2 moms liked this

 IDK! I was wondering that myself!!

ALolies
by Red Room Rebel on Jul. 16, 2013 at 11:01 AM
1 mom liked this

I also wondered about that... It seems odd to me...

dana63
by Momma of 40ish on Jul. 16, 2013 at 11:05 AM
1 mom liked this

 I thought it was odd as well. I also heard that these 6 woman were very conflicted and wanted so much to give a manslaughter charge but because the evidence wasnt there they couldn't.

I also think it is wrong that one will profit from this case with a book deal.. Telling why they had to alow him to walk free is one thing but making a profit from it is another...

ssassys
by New sister on Jul. 16, 2013 at 11:12 AM
3 moms liked this

Both the prosecution and the defense have to agree on each juror. 

From an article in the NYTimes "Potential jurors were questioned methodically, as lawyers for the state and the defense sought to weed out those who had formed opinions in this widely publicized case. About 500 people were sent summonses. Pretrial questionnaires slimmed down that pool, and those who reached the last part of the process underwent one-on-one questioning by both sides before appearing Thursday for the final selection.   ......  

In a statement, the Martin family’s legal team said it also expected a fair and impartial jury.

“With the makeup of this jury, the question of whether every American can get equal justice regardless of who serves on their jury panel will be answered,” the statement read. “Equal justice under the law is not a black value or a white value.”"

As for the question about the six person jury - here's paragraph from a CBS news article :

"For many years, the Constitution was interpreted as guaranteeing a trial by a 12-member jury. However, in Williams v. Florida, a Supreme Court ruling in 1970, it was decided that at least six persons is "large enough to promote group deliberation, free from outside intimidation, and to provide a fair possibility for obtaining a cross-section of the community."

It was also noted in the ruling that there is "no discernible difference between the results reached by the two different-sized juries."

Google is your friend.


goins1119
by Bronze sister on Jul. 16, 2013 at 11:21 AM


Thank you for that information. It gives me a clearer understanding as to why they were able to legally proceed with a murder trial against a black man where there were mostly white women on the jury. However, I still do not believe that it was fair. The same happened in the trial of Emmett Till, Rodney King, and so many other high profile crimes over the years where  a black man is killed, the jury was mostly white, and the person gets off. I can however understand the legality but I still feel that it was unfair and biased. Thank you for sharing the information.

Quoting ssassys:

Both the prosecution and the defense have to agree on each juror. 

From an article in the NYTimes "Potential jurors were questioned methodically, as lawyers for the state and the defense sought to weed out those who had formed opinions in this widely publicized case. About 500 people were sent summonses. Pretrial questionnaires slimmed down that pool, and those who reached the last part of the process underwent one-on-one questioning by both sides before appearing Thursday for the final selection.   ......  

In a statement, the Martin family’s legal team said it also expected a fair and impartial jury.

“With the makeup of this jury, the question of whether every American can get equal justice regardless of who serves on their jury panel will be answered,” the statement read. “Equal justice under the law is not a black value or a white value.”"

As for the question about the six person jury - here's paragraph from a CBS news article :

"For many years, the Constitution was interpreted as guaranteeing a trial by a 12-member jury. However, in Williams v. Florida, a Supreme Court ruling in 1970, it was decided that at least six persons is "large enough to promote group deliberation, free from outside intimidation, and to provide a fair possibility for obtaining a cross-section of the community."

It was also noted in the ruling that there is "no discernible difference between the results reached by the two different-sized juries."

Google is your friend.




ssassys
by New sister on Jul. 16, 2013 at 11:30 AM
3 moms liked this

When jury summons are sent it is done randomly.  The county the trial was held in shows only 11% of the population as being AA.  And, when that is coupled with having to find jurors who have not been influenced by what they have seen in the media it becoms even more difficult to get a more racially balanced jury.  Our system is not perfect, but it's alot better than most and the supreme court has ruled many times that it is fair.   I would encourage you to read some articles about the trial.  The legal system is much more complicated than most people realize and the jury must act upon the evidence presented - not on their personal feelings.  And, the evidence presented did not prove Zimmerman guilty.

cindim1963
by on Jul. 16, 2013 at 11:38 AM
1 mom liked this
I wonder if the fact that the judge didn't answer the question the jury had about the manslaughter charge had something to do with they way the verdict went.


Quoting dana63:

 I thought it was odd as well. I also heard that these 6 woman were very conflicted and wanted so much to give a manslaughter charge but because the evidence wasnt there they couldn't.


I also think it is wrong that one will profit from this case with a book deal.. Telling why they had to alow him to walk free is one thing but making a profit from it is another...


wearymoon
by Sister on Jul. 16, 2013 at 11:40 AM
1 mom liked this

I haven't followed the case enough to answer but I can say that I am truly disturbed by the whole thing, from beginning to end.

firelites
by Anne on Jul. 16, 2013 at 11:41 AM
1 mom liked this

 the way the media blast broadcast across the airways and internet it's a wonder that they found anyone that could make a base jury, and yes a 6 person jury is legal, it's a shame all these twits are tearing up the street with riots, it just goes to show how low class America is devolving into.

goins1119
by Bronze sister on Jul. 16, 2013 at 11:45 AM


Then the prosecution did not do their job correctly. A young man is approached by an over zealous volunteer carrying a weapon. How does anyone know exactly when Zimmerman showed Martin his weapon? If he pulled his weapon out in the begining, then Martin may have been trying to fight to keep from getting shot.

The volunteer was warned not to approach Martin. The volunteer approached him anyway, that should have sealed the case right there for alteast manslaughter. If I were in a city that is not my home, and I am aproached by an unknown person, I would immediately feel apprehsive. The point is that the unarmed teenager was shot by an armed man who had been warned by officials not to pursue or follow. After the murder, everything that happened should have been questioned. Florida is known to be a politically dishonest and very predjudice state. Evident by what has happened every time there is a presidential election, It's always Florida.... I just hope that the family is able to sue Zimmerman in civil court. Bottom line is that Zimmerman took the life of a young boy. A murder that would not have happened if he had followed the orders of the dispatcher from the very begining and let the police do their job. In my opinion, the prosecution did a lousy job and the jury selection was not fair. It should have been taken to another jurisdicition if they couldn't find a suitable jury selection in Florida. Also with such a high profile crime sending out summons to only 500 people was obviously not enough.

Quoting ssassys:

When jury summons are sent it is done randomly.  The county the trial was held in shows only 11% of the population as being AA.  And, when that is coupled with having to find jurors who have not been influenced by what they have seen in the media it becoms even more difficult to get a more racially balanced jury.  Our system is not perfect, but it's alot better than most and the supreme court has ruled many times that it is fair.   I would encourage you to read some articles about the trial.  The legal system is much more complicated than most people realize and the jury must act upon the evidence presented - not on their personal feelings.  And, the evidence presented did not prove Zimmerman guilty.



Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)