Juror B29

 PT2CNN – Zimmerman ‘got away with murder’

CNN – Zimmerman juror to ABC: He ‘got away with murder’

ABC- George Zimmerman Juror Says ‘In Our Hearts, We Felt He Was Guilty’

MSNBC – Juror: Zimmerman ‘got away with murder’

CBS- Trayvon’s mother: Latest juror statement “devastating”

Yahoo News-Juror says she owes Martin’s parents apology

NPR-Zimmerman Juror: He ‘Got Away With Murder’

I am not sure what those headlines say to you, but I suspect that the intent of the interview was met…to stoke the glowing embers of one of the most divisive legal cases in recent history.

I am honestly not surprised though given the continuing campaign to paint this as a racially motivated incident. There seemed to be an agenda here to portray B29, the only minority on the jury as being bullied into a not-guilty verdict. It didn’t sound that way to me. What I heard was a woman who was very emotionally connected to this case whether she wanted to be or not…a mother and a minority, torn between her duty to be objective and follow the law, her empathy for the parents of Trayvon Martin and her connection to the African American community. What I heard very clearly was B29 trying to explain and justify, not only her vote and how she came to that conclusion, but how the jury collectively chose to let the law and not their emotions drive their verdict.

Here are the headlines you didn’t see:

Juror:  ‘I Never Felt It Was About Race’

B29: ‘We Could Not Find Him Guilty According To The Law’

The Verdict: B29 – ‘I Wanted Him To Be Guilty’

Lone Minority Juror – ‘I Felt Like This Was A Publicity Stunt.’

Juror B29 – ‘I Stand By The Decision Because Of The Law.’

The interview conducted by veteran ABC GMA host Robin Roberts was the second interview by a juror and the first done openly showing the jurors face. At one point in the interview Roberts asked B29 how she responds to those who say that George Zimmerman got away with Murder to which the former Juror stumbled to answer. Roberts got the answer she was looking for but it was clear that B29 was divided sharply between right in the eyes of the law and right in the eyes of everyone who wanted George Zimmerman to be the evil racist murderer he had been made out to be.

“I wanted him to be guilty. I knew in my heart he was guilty but we could not find him guilty according to the law.”

“I stand by the decision because of the law. If I stand by the decision because of my heart, he would he would have been guilty.”

B29 said that some of the jurors looked very hard, trying to find a way to convict, stressing that keeping their emotions separate from their obligation to objective legal deliberations was very difficult in this case.

“A lot of us had wanted to find something bad, something we could connect to the law.”

“For myself, he’s guilty…because the evidence shows he’s guilty.”

Roberts was quick to respond, pushing for an answer as to what Zimmerman was guilty of, to which B29 clarified.

“Killing Trayvon Martin. ” …but went on to clarify that in her interpretation of the law, if you cannot prove he killed intentionally, then he is not guilty of Murder or Manslaughter.

So from this we conclude that in the opinion of Juror B29, looking strictly at the law and not her emotional connection to the case, she believes that though Zimmerman did kill Martin, there was no proof he did it intentionally and therefore he was not guilty of the crimes he was charged with.

Juror B29, who used the name Maddy,  said that as the only minority on the Jury, she felt like she let a lot of people down. I can appreciate and understand her feelings on that being so strongly connected to Sybrina Fulton, as a mother and as a minority, but I would have to disagree. To let her emotions interfere with her obligation in that court room would have let everyone down. It would have been a slap in the face to those who have defended the principles of our free nation. Our Judicial system is not perfect and we are not always going to agree with it, but it is a foundation of American principle.

Trayvon’s Mother later referred to the interview as having provided “…new information.”

Nothing new here I’m afraid…just a juror doing her duty objectively and without influence…and then apologizing for it.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s