The long wait, and finally, the jury selection process starts

Dispatch 2 from the George Zimmerman Trial

June 10, 2013

Sanford, FL—It's almost 10:00am and court is in recess with no word from Judge Debra S. Nelson regarding when the trial against George Zimmerman will start. Zimmerman was charged with second degree murder in the killing of Trayvon Martin, a 17-year-old who was walking back to the home of his father's fiancee from a local convenience store on February 26, 2012.

Currently, I am sitting in courtroom 1-B, which has been designated the “media overflow room” at the Seminole County Criminal Justice Center. In order to get a seat in the actual courtroom, individuals and organizations had to sign up for a seat in early March of 2013. There were only 24 seats available for media and I was told that the list is tens of names long after the initial 24 journalists and news organizations.

In order to get a sense of the dynamics in play in the courtroom, it is always best to see the real thing without the mediation of other news agencies or even the court's camera feed. What's missed by not being in the courtroom is where and how the families of Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman are seated, how many officers are present, what vibe the defense and DA teams are giving off, and whether the judge is in a good mood or a bad mood. It would give me the chance to see who the potential anonymous jurors are as well as see their body language and the courtroom reaction to their testimony.

When I made my decision to come to Sanford, the deadline for requesting a seat in court was past and unfortunately, if I wanted to follow the trial it would be from the media overflow room. The room itself is nice, and we're allowed to sit past the bar. (See the image above.) They have charging stations and power strips as well. Computers and recording devices may be used and the 12 media people in the room can be heard in the background clicking away on their keyboards, sending texts, or receiving tweets. It's also cold—they've got the air conditioning going full blast in the building.

My role here is two fold. On the one hand, I am bearing witness to the train wreck that is our legal system, while on the other hand I am doing direct media work. I am biased, but that's nothing new coming from a journalist@ with the Independent Media Center. The nature of that bias will hopefully reveal itself through my dispatches.

Speaking of bias, these first couple of weeks of the trial are going to be about selecting a jury. Some might ask, why follow the jury selection process? Isn't that a boring activity? Listening to the attorneys ask the same questions again and again to each individual juror? Well, it's true—it can be tedious. However, jury selection can make or break a trial. It can lead to a hung jury or findings of guilt or innocence. It is the foundation of trials. Thus, it is critical to observe and report on.

Sadly, many of the potential jurors who have been interviewed thus far in either don't want to be informed about the world around them or are too busy to be informed.

To protect potential jurors, the judge ruled that they are to remain anonymous. Meaning no video or photos can be taken of them and they have been assigned a letter and number to designate them. On the live feed you can hear their responses, but you don't see them. The only way to see them is to be in courtroom 5-D where they are physically testifying.

Looking at my notes, I have written down that Juror B12 was asked if they knew the difference between a cop drama and real life; did B12 understand the real world from make believe?

“Yes,” B12 responded.

The prosecutor, Bernie de la Rionda, asked, “Could you keep an open mind in this case?”

B12 responds, “I have not formed an opinion.”

Another juror, B29, was asked similar questions. “Can you disregard anything you've heard or seen on the TV or read in the newspaper about this case?”

“Yes. I don't like to watch anything that happens in the real world,” B29 responds. B29 enjoyed watching dramas on the Bravo channel.

“Are you saying you are a blank slate for this case?” asked de la Rionda.

“Yes,” B29 responds.

At the same time, there has been a resounding suspicion and indictment of the corporate news media; almost every single potential juror has said something like the media isn't trustworthy, or the media doesn't always get it right, or the media is biased.

On the first day of the trial, four jurors were interviewed. Forty-one were dismissed. On the second day, 14 jurors were interviewed, with another 30 dismissed. This from a pool of 500 potential jurors who could decide this case.

In the hours of interviews I'd heard, many potential jurors seemed to hold desperately to an apolitical, center position where they could hear facts but refuse to come to any decision or opinion about the case until it's been codified in court. This kind of thinking is dangerous because a lot of unexamined or unconscious prejudices are exposed in the questioning and if these I-need-to-be-neutral-and-apolitical! jurors are selected, then we have unconscious and uncritical people making decisions that could be manipulated through unequal and dominator power relations in the jury room. Of course, these dynamics are not pointed out by the State and there is no referee present during deliberations. This notion that we need jurors who are completely objective seems counter to the reality that human beings are absolutely subjective beings and that in our ever increasing and spied on technologically advancing world it would seem harder and harder to find an objective or near objective juror.

Mansfield Frazier of The Daily Beast wrote a good description of why the jury selection process is important within the context of Florida law:

Voir dire is the process whereby attorneys from both sides get to ask potential jurors questions. Under Florida law six jurors (not 12) will hear the case against Zimmerman. In the state’s code of criminal procedure, the section that outlines the “grounds for challenge to individual jurors for cause” (Section 913.03) is the longest and most detailed by far, and for good reason. All criminal-defense lawyers (and prosecutors, as well) know cases can be won or lost during jury selection. In addition to striking a juror for “cause,” each side has six “preemptory” challenges, which means a potential juror can be dismissed without a reason being given. After Jim Crow laws were abolished, these preemptory challenges were the tool used to keep blacks off of juries. (Italics added.)

For myself, the first time I sat through a high profile trial was the Tyquan Rivera case where Rivera was accused and found guilty of shooting officer Anthony DiPonzio. (one, two, three, four, five, six) Observing the case, I was able to witness how the corporate media reported on proceedings. Generally, the journalists would sit in court, observe what was going on, or do crossword puzzles & sleep, and then at the end of the day, come out and ask then District Attorney Mike Green what happened in court. That sound bite would be reported as fact. The crazy part of it was that Green would choose to give the media subtle twists or manipulations of what was said in court to full on lies. The bored corporate media never questioned this even though they presumably sat through the same testimony. Observing and reporting on the case, I always felt that there was always doubt and never evidence amounting to a conviction based on a legal standard of beyond a reasonable doubt. In the last article I wrote on the case, I said

Throughout the trial, the jury was charged with finding "The Truth" of the matter beyond a reasonable doubt. With no ballistic evidence, no finger prints, no DNA, a gun that couldn't be testified to as the weapon that shot DiPonzio, and no eye-witness testifying to seeing the shooting, coupled with a whopping ton of innuendo and circumstantial evidence presented by Green to the jury, is it any wonder that doubt exists? We think not.

Observing the trial allowed me the opportunity to see the reality of the evidence and the testimony without the media filter. This included the corporate media interviewing former District Attorney Mike Green and then reporting exactly what he said as “The Truth”—even though they sat in the same room, heard the same testimony, and could identify when he was being manipulative or lying. What the public is allowed to see, what is reported, and what actually happens in court are all different from each other.

Jury selection is related to this because it lays the foundation of who is going to hear the case and make the decisions. The public has the opportunity to not only see what the composition of the deciders of the case will be, but also hear the potential biases and see the red flags that the defense and the prosecution are looking for through their lines of questioning. Direct observation and reporting is direct action. As George Orwell said, “In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”

 

Earlier Monday morning

Before even getting to the media overflow room, I had to get to the courthouse. I had two Seminole County Courthouses to choose from—one was civil the other was criminal and the courts were about five miles apart. I chose the civil, but eventually made my way to the criminal court once I realized the mistake.

Upon arriving at 101 Bush Blvd., I was asked by sheriffs where I was going. I explained I was a journalist from New York covering the Zimmerman trial. They directed me to the overflow parking lot which was around the bend, and in a field (about a ten minute walk to the courthouse). I parked my car, grabbed my gear, and headed toward the building.

On the way, I was directed to a bridge over water which would cut my walk time down. I thanked the sheriff and proceeded on. As I crossed the bridge, however, I felt like I was entering some kind of fantasy world of corporate media! Tents, trucks, lights, generators, air conditioners, and trailers were all parked very close together and everywhere! Seeing the huge media presence, I was curious what I would find in the protest areas. Know what I found? About 40 Martin supporters and zero Zimmerman supporters. The sheriffs had everything logistically pinned down, but the masses were no where to be seen. I wouldn't be surprised if people were waiting for the actual trial to start before coming out. Did I mention the glut of done-up corporate media people—primed, painted, and polished—wandering around armed with cameras, laptops, lenses, recorders, pads and pens, and gear bags? Everywhere?

Moving into the Martin support pen, I was able to capture an interview being conducted by one of the local affiliates with Oscar Grant's uncle, Cephus “Uncle Bobby” Johnson. He talked about the murder of his nephew and compared the two cases. Watch the video:

I headed into the courthouse and was told that media have a special metal detector that they can go through instead of the public metal detector. I thanked the sheriff and went through. My R-IMC press badge helped me a ton because it seemed like if you didn't h

ave a press badge, then there would be a lot more scrutiny.

The trial is being held in courtroom 5-D so I got onto the elevator and pressed five. When the doors opened, I headed toward the metal detector outside the courtroom. I was asked if I had a special badge to get into the courtroom and I replied in the negative. I was then directed to see Michelle Kennedy, an employee of the court. Michelle and her intern Rachel have been very kind hosts to all the media. Rachel told me that media spaces in the courtroom have been booked for months with tens of names on the waiting list. The deadline to register to get into the court ended sometime in March. Therefore, I was invited to watch the trial from the media overflow room.

 

10:35am

On the screen, with no audio, we saw stacks of questionnaires being passed between lawyers and Judge Nelson. Sometimes the live feed would focus only on the court's seal whereas other times you'd see a long shot of Zimmerman or the lawyers from either side conferring. The cue that something was happening was when the audio cut back in.

Seminole County had called in some 1,400 prospective jurors for jury duty. Of those initial 1,400 potential jurors, five hundred were asked to stay in court. In order to expedite the process, a questionnaire was given to jurors to fill out which gave the prosecution and defense some information that they could use to hone their lines of questioning.

The main concern of the lawyers on both sides is what's called pretrial publicity. Basically, is the jury pool too “contaminated” with information pertaining to the case to give the defendant a fair trial. What have the jurors heard, read, and/or seen? Have they formed opinions, and if so, could those opinions be left at the door in order to keep an open mind to the facts presented in court? Reporters in the overflow room were assured that we would be able to hear the questions and responses of the prospective jurors regardless of their anonymous status. I recall a collective sigh.

 

11:15am

I would categorize the day as one of hurry up and wait. Lunch recess had not been called yet so I decided to go warm up outside. Courtroom 1-B can get incredibly cold even though, outside, it was sunny, humid, and in the high 80s.

After taking a stroll outside, I came back in to continue observing and writing. Imagine my surprise when entering courtroom 1-B to see a press conference underway with Robert Zimmerman, George's brother. I pulled out my Flip camera and joined the two dozen or so others who were listening and recording.

Robert looked sleek in his gray suit, polished in his demeanor and body language, and fielded questions like a champ doing some media jiujitsu that deflected questions that might tip his hand or give too much away, while embracing the softball questions with calm and reassuring answers. And the media loved it.

Lunch came and went. Around 1:55pm, court went back into recess because the prosecution (Bernie de la Rionda) and the defense (Mark O'Mara & Don West) were having trouble reading the questionnaires. Once potential juror made the comment that it was hard to write out the questionnaire because there was no hard surface on which to write.

 

2:30pm

Finally, after a long day of waiting, the attorneys, the judge, and the potential jurors seemed ready to go for the interview process based off the questionnaire that all 500 had filled out. Four potential jurors were interviewed before the end of the day. Generally, the lines of questioning were about what they had heard about the case, when they had heard it, what they remember, what they would do if the situation occurred where, when deliberating, something came up from theirs or other jurors' memories that was not presented in court, if they were blank slates, and if they could be objective and fair.

To see the live feed of the proceedings, check out: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/watch-live-george-zimmerman-trial-jury-selection-3/. The court has said that once their feed is archived, it will be made public--but that didn't seem to be something that would happen quickly.

At 5:00pm, Judge Nelson recessed the case until the following day and admonished the potential jurors. She told them not to talk about the case or watch any news.

While she did that, I went outside to de-thaw from the cold inner depths of the Seminole County Criminal Justice Center.

 

Additional Information: Leading up to it--some thoughts from Sanford, FL | "Million Hoodie March" Across the US | Zimmerman's Trial Approaching; Trayvon Martin Rally from 2012 | After Trayvon Martin Incident, Hypocrisy Continues To Run Rampant in Rochester, New York!