One of the sad truths of the Zimmerman trial is this: Despite the back and forth about legal elements of the case like "reasonable doubt", the racism of the jurors likely decided the outcome, and that outcome was always likely to be "not guilty."
Some may wish to believe that we live in a color blind society, but I want to exam the jury to see if those views hold true. I believe the case was for at least some of the jury was about racialized space- the black boy was in a place at a time they thought he shouldn't be. Let's look at one of the jurors selected from Sanford.
Actually, before I start, let me point out that finding a non-racist jury in Sanford may have been a challenge.
More below
You may think I am being unfair to Sanford, but I am not. The town has a long history of racism:
During the jury selection process in the George Zimmerman second-degree-murder trial, various potential jurors spoke disparagingly about the demonstrations in Sanford, FL that were instrumental in bringing about the charges against Mr. Zimmerman. For example, one juror, during voir dire, characterized the large protests in Sanford following the local prosecutor’s protest failure to charge Zimmerman as “riots.” In addition, those individuals proclaiming Zimmerman’s innocence have been quick to claim that this a simply a case of justifiable self-defense and equally quick to deny that there is any racial element to this case. The prosecution, on the other hand, is claiming that Zimmerman targeted Trayvon Martin because he was black.
http://allthingscrimeblog.com/...
Indeed, this continues today:
Even now, decades after Jackie Robinson encountered one of the worst bouts of racism in baseball history and the death of the Moore family, accusations of racist police brutality and wrongful death continue to lie in the courtrooms of Sanford, Florida. The city, which is approximately 30 percent black, continues the investigation of the recent murders of three black men.
http://blackamericaweb.com/...
So, on with the discussion, why was Juror B37 allowed to stay on the jury?
Let me explain why I am asking that question by quoting a Gawker article:
A mere two days after finding George Zimmerman innocent of the murder of Trayvon Martin, juror B37 in the case has signed on with a prominent literary agent, as a prelude to a book deal. This juror is a woman who hates the media and went into the trial mistakenly believing there were "riots" over the case...
The Gawker article adds:
- During questioning, she referred multiple times to "riots" in Sanford after Trayvon Martin was killed. "I knew there was rioting, but I guess [the authorities] had it pretty well organized," she says at one point. In fact, despite a great deal of salivating anticipation by the media both before and after the trial, there were no riots in Sanford, Florida....
- Asked by George Zimmerman's attorney to describe Trayvon Martin, she said, "He was a boy of color."
So, to summarize, juror B37, who is now seeking a book detail less than 2 days after referred to the victim as "boy of color." I am sure some will think, "that's not so offensive." Alone, it may not be. But her other comment about riots tells a different picture. The crassness of her book deal tells even more.
Why was she on the jury? Likely because for Sanford, that's the best you can hope to find. This was the type of juror we were relying on for justice.
The truth is, when it comes to the criminal justice system, if one is black, whether one is the victim or the defendant, the outcomes are unjust. Study after study backs this up.