PDA

View Full Version : Trayvon Martin justice group member tries to get onto George Zimmerman jury


txtebow
06-14-2013, 05:27 PM
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/pro-trayvon-martin-man-george-zimmerman-jury-article-1.1370906

A member of a pro-Travyon Martin group was unmasked Wednesday as he tried to get on the Florida jury in George Zimmermanís trial for shooting the unarmed teen.

A white male potential juror identified on his Facebook page as Jerry Counelis gave long, rambling answers about his impartiality when asked basic questions by attorneys.


Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/pro-trayvon-martin-man-george-zimmerman-jury-article-1.1370906#ixzz2WEhmaSmb

cutthemdown
06-14-2013, 05:28 PM
He should be prosecuted for lying under oath.

txtebow
06-14-2013, 05:32 PM
I guarantee a conviction despite the fact that Trayvon had abrasions to his fists, while Zimmerman had a broken nose and multiple abrasions to his face and head.....

txtebow
06-14-2013, 06:22 PM
He should be prosecuted for lying under oath.

indeed.

cutthemdown
06-14-2013, 11:51 PM
I think it ends in a hung jury myself. The defense will be able to find one person who says self defense. Then it will come down to whether they have a 2nd trial.

kappys
06-15-2013, 04:23 PM
He should be prosecuted for lying under oath.

Hmm - I read the article and I'm not sure where it says he was lying.

cutthemdown
06-16-2013, 05:52 AM
They asked if he could be impartial and he said yes. Then it was shown he already made prejudicial statements to the contrary.

kappys
06-16-2013, 08:25 PM
They asked if he could be impartial and he said yes. Then it was shown he already made prejudicial statements to the contrary.

That's still not lying - asking someone if they can be impartial is asking them to make a judgement call on themselves

cutthemdown
06-16-2013, 08:41 PM
You must come from the Obama school of the truth.

kappys
06-16-2013, 09:05 PM
You must come from the Obama school of the truth.

Well the same school of truth as most of our elected officials.

At any rate he shouldn't be on the jury - I don't think the guy perjured himself and should be open to criminal charges either.

cutthemdown
06-16-2013, 09:31 PM
I'd have to see exactly everything asked. If they asked have you made any statements about the case, and he said no, then yes that is perjury.

kappys
06-17-2013, 05:36 AM
I'd have to see exactly everything asked. If they asked have you made any statements about the case, and he said no, then yes that is perjury.

If they did that - there is nothing in the article that suggests they did. If the question was only "can you be impartial" then there is no opening for perjury

cutthemdown
06-17-2013, 06:16 AM
I've sat through this stuff before Kappy. Just because we don't get all the questions you can see what happened. To disqualify a juror you need a reason. The fact they showed him something he wrote, asked if that was him, and he said yes shows before that they asked him that question.

Kappy I work as a paralegal and know what i am talking about here.

The lawyer probably asked him something like have you made statements to anyone, or on social media. Then after he answered no the lawyers showed the judge the statements, then showed him the statements and asked if he wrote them. He was caught, said yes and was excused.

You wouldn't show him those statements until you ask him. It wouldn't be a story unless he had lied trying to get on the jury. It's a very reasonable assumption.

Neither side wants a person like that on a jury.

Garcia Bronco
06-17-2013, 03:27 PM
That's still not lying - asking someone if they can be impartial is asking them to make a judgement call on themselves

Either way...would you want that person on a jury to decide YOUR innocence or guilt? I would think not. We can't have jurors that have a conflict of interest. It taints the system. We'd lose faith in it (even more so than where you think it's at).


On the topic itself and based on the facts I have read, I can't see how Zimmerman is convicted. You never know though.

cutthemdown
06-17-2013, 04:37 PM
Kappy doesn't think the guy should be on the jury, he just thinks its not officially perjury. I think technically it probably was but we would have to see the complete transcript. They don't really say what questions he was asked and what his answers were. Only that after questioned he was shown his own words and asked if they were his. He then said yes and was excused.

Its important because defense only gets so many exclusions but I don't know what Fla law is, how many etc. They will want to save some just to get blacks off the jury. Obviously the woman who admitted her Church is in Sanford you want off. You don't want people like that on this jury lol. But its a sticky situation you can't just exclude someone because of race. But for going to church in the city it happened, you could maybe say its for bias.

cutthemdown
06-17-2013, 04:38 PM
jury selection is so important. You win and lose trials right here.

kappys
06-17-2013, 04:49 PM
Either way...would you want that person on a jury to decide YOUR innocence or guilt? I would think not. We can't have jurors that have a conflict of interest. It taints the system. We'd lose faith in it (even more so than where you think it's at).


On the topic itself and based on the facts I have read, I can't see how Zimmerman is convicted. You never know though.

This guy shouldn't be on the jury - but its going to be very challenging to find people who haven't heard about the case. The next question then is have you formed an opinion? Based on my experience people form opinions almost instantly to news - regardless of how little a news snipit they get. That doesn't mean their opinions are set in stone or not subject to change as the entire story is revealed.

I haven't followed this case as closely as many - based on what I have heard I think the verdict is likely to depend a lot on whether the jury feels Zimmerman initiated the conflict with Martin and thus Martin's actions were the ones that were excusable as self defense.

cutthemdown
06-17-2013, 10:37 PM
The guy most likely lied and said no I have not made any statements. Then the lawyers showed him the statements he made and asked if they were his. Boom he's caught that's how its done in court. You don't show the person something before you have caught him in the lie.

nyuk nyuk
06-23-2013, 05:04 PM
The left are so confident in their righteousness, they try to rig everything as they go along.