anderson interviewed was one that was dominant in that room to sway this other juror who believed he had committed murder. the jury instructions with pivotal in all of this. this new juror that has come forward, she s a mother of eight. she has one child that is around the age of trayvon martin. we have to feel for her emotionally because she is a distraught woman. she also goes on to say this. she says, that s where i femt confused, where if a person kills someone, then you get charged for it. but as the law was read to me, if you have no proof that he killed him intentionally, you can t say he s guilty. even though she was the holdout, she thought maybe second degree murder would be appropriate. in the end she went along with the five other women and acquitted. you know what s fascinating to me, we know initially in the jury deliberations, there were
interesting. you have, usually the thing about race, it s usually black and white. now you got the situation where the only latino involved in this case and zimmerman is half latino says she wants to put him in jail. she says it s not about race. then when you look at the reaction in the public the majority of latinos and black folks think the case was decided wrongly, the vast majority of whites say it was decide correctly. i think what have you is a bad and confusing law the stand your ground law, aploo id to bad and confusing facts with a bad and confusing outcome in a racially diverse country trying to come to terms with itself. i think what we got to do here is listen to each other in our reaction. it s almost like an ink blot test, somebody sees a butter fly, somebody sees a dog who is right, who is wrong? you are learning more about the person looking at the image than the image, itself. white americans having one set
good. and at the end of the day, he has to have a lot of questions and answers he has to deal with. but the law couldn t prove it. i know a lot of people will be shocked by this, a juror so soon after the trial will make a statement like this. but lawyers who try these cases see this happen all the time. jurors have buyers remorse. they, she s listening to the press. she s re-evaluating. she is feeling kind of guilty about her vote. so she s making this statement. i do note, though, that she does say that in following the law, prosecutors have not proven guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. the thing you have to remember is you can t reopen a case just because a juror has had a change of heart post-verdict. you have to show something improper happened in the jury room. we have to hear the details of the interview to see if that develops. is this damaging to the prosecution, lisa, the way they operated, the way they conducted their case? well, i have been very critical of this prosecu
office of the chief counsel. a few of the career lawyers were brought in to deal with the issue. one source summed it up saying what we learned is meaningful but it s not a bomb shell. republicans are already using this issue in their campaigns for mid-term elections. they certainly are. it s too juicy to pass you. we are going to watch two videos accusing the president of using the irs for political advantage. he s used the irs to launch a war on our freedom of speech. when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal. what does the president believe? the law here is irrelevant. we re going to punish our
i want you to recall what she said as opposed to juror b-37, what she told anderson cooper about ten days or so ago. listen to this. what did you think of george zimmerman? are. i think george zimmerman is a man whose heart was in the right place but just got displaced by the vandalism in the neighborhoods and wanting to catch these people so badly that he went above and beyond what he really should have done. all right, jeanne, go ahead and compare these two women. one is saying that george zimmerman got away with murder but there was no enough evidence to convict him. another one giving a little bit different nuance there. the jury determines the issues of fact. i think these jurors are diametrically opposed as to what they believe factually was the case but they had to look at the law. obviously the juror that