Another Zimmerman juror speaks out

Last week, Juror B37 was quick to the microphones, telling us all that Georgie Zimmmerman was justified in shooting Trayvon Martin, that he had done nothing lawless.   She also had a book deal, which was later withdrawn.  Her comments and demeanor suggest that she was opinionated and aggressive in the deliberations.

Subsequently, four of the six jurors wrote a letter dissociating themselves from her comments.

Now, the fifth juror B-29 -- who was not one of those four -- has given an interview to ABC News, in which she explains that she wanted to find Zimmerman guilty and initially had voted for a guilty verdict.   She thought she would be the one who caused a hung jury.  But as they examined the law and the options presented to them, she realized that the evidence was not there to support a guilty verdict under the law as presented to them.

Juror B-29 says that she is haunted by the decision.  "I feel I was forcibly included in Trayvon Martin's death" and "I carry him on my back" and hurt as much as his mother.  In response to a question, she acknowledged that she thinks "George Zimmerman got away with murder."

Nevertheless, she still sticks with the decision, because it was not possible under the law to find him guilty with the proof that he killed him with intent.

This is the nub of the issue.   The self-defense law in Florida is so broad that, if you cannot prove that he intended to kill him, with malice, you cannot convict of manslaughter -- even when he set the whole thing in motion, provoked the encounter, and fired the gun that killed Marin.

It raises grave questions about the law.   It raises serious questions about the adequecy of the prosecution's case.  And it raises troubling questions about the process in the juror's private deliberations -- how much can one juror influence the others.    Here we have the most outspoken juror rushing to speak publicly -- and the other five have all distanced themselves from her statements.  And yet it was her view that prevailed.

Did she dominate the deliberations?    Might the case have been thought through a bit differently without her aggressiveness?  

Ralph