The trial of George Zimmerman for the shooting death of Trayvon Martin was turned, predictably, into a circus by the mainstream media. Witness the fact, not the least, that the most common reference to the trial throughout the media has been “the Trayvon Martin case,” the “Trayvon Martin verdict,” etc.
Hey, Trayvon was not on trial, people. Trayvon is deceased. George Zimmerman was on trial. It was his case. The verdict was about him. But the media gets more mileage for its agenda out of pumping the minority as victim, even though that was the very question under dispute in the case.
This is the classic fallacy of begging the question, and the media did its best to ensure that the public would be conditioned by it.
This only ensures violent disparities of opinion once the verdict comes out. Because in jury deliberation, such a fallacy meets two stubborn things: law and fact. This means some degree of logic and truth is likely to prevail in the application of the law.
The latest round of this media bias involves the contrast between two jurors who have spoken publicly since the trial. Remember Juror B37 who spoke out immediately after the trial? It’s been made clear she is white. Such being the case, CNN’s Anderson Cooper made sure to question how she viewed the ebonics of Trayvon’s friend Rachel Jeantel. She was blasted by the media. Her ill-fated book deal was immediately squashed.
Enter Juror B29, a self-described “black Hispanic,” who was the lone hold-out for a murder charge at first. ABC News tossed her emotionally-laden softballs: what about those people who say “George Zimmerman got away with murder?” She repeated along: “George Zimmerman got away with murder.”
But even in her friendly and leftist-propped interview, she let slip what the previous juror had noted. B37 had noted, “There was a couple of them in there that wanted to find him guilty of something,” and explained of one who “wanted to find him guilty of something, but couldn’t because of the way the law is written.”
B29 confirmed this, saying that she “want to find something bad—something we could connect with the law.” But she failed in this witch hunt. She was at last persuaded by the other jurors that there was nothing in the law to condemn Zimmerman. He is innocent.
Yet, goaded on by the liberal interviewers, she was allowed to say unequivocally that Zimmerman was in fact “guilty”:
“He’s guilty because the evidence shows he’s guilty.” This is pure biased nonsense. When asked, “of what,” the juror gratuitously and completely without definition or correction from her interviewers, made the following confused statement: “guilty of killing Trayvon Martin.”
Let’s be clear: there is no “guilt” for “killing,” unless the killing is murder, manslaughter, etc., which it was not. ABC News dropped the ball in not correcting her—meaning, that ABC News was doing its job as a leftist instigator of the public.
Further, despite noting over and over that her actions had nothing to do with “color,” B29 said, “I’m the only minority, and I felt like I let a lot of people down.”
Why, because you were persuaded to uphold the law?
Legal analyst John Hinderaker of PowerLine blog notes that such “juror remorse” is a common thing, even when the proper decision was reached. But this has some implications which we must consider: i.e. prejudice on the part of that juror. He writes,
[T]he backsliding juror is one who failed to carry the day. His or her arguments were insufficient; the evidence didn’t provide him or her with enough ammunition to prevail. This is what we see with Juror B29. She admits that the evidence didn’t support a conviction; that being the case, we can only wonder why she held out for a conviction as long as she did. She says that the jurors thought Zimmerman was guilty “in their hearts.” No doubt she was speaking only for her own heart, but the salient point is that when you feel something in your heart, despite a lack of evidence, you are indulging a bias or prejudice. That is nothing to be proud of. . . .
Juror B29′s partial recantation is neither unusual nor of any significance. It is a typical case of juror remorse. It will, of course, be woven into the revisionist Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman narrative. As usual, liberals will not accept defeat in their persecution of Zimmerman, but will continue to insist on an alternate reality, divorced from the evidence that was presented in the courtroom, until their fiction becomes the new truth. We are seeing this effort on a daily basis. Whether it can ultimately succeed, only time will tell.
Hinderaker notes that in light of such a phenomenon, the verdict itself should strengthen our faith in the jury system, and not in individual opinions, and (I would add) certainly not in the media which manipulates and exploits such opinions and prejudices:
Listening to the contradictory and not very intelligent musings of Juror B29, we are reminded of the virtues of the jury system. There is a reason why we empanel a group of individuals, ranging in size from six to twelve, to decide a civil or criminal case. There is wisdom in the group: jurors bring different experiences and perspectives to bear; biases and preconceptions tend to cancel each other out; a vital evidentiary point that was missed by one juror likely was caught by others; the process of debate and deliberation sifts the facts and, much more often than not, leads to a just result. When you see a single juror being interviewed after a trial (or when you interview one yourself, as I have done) you often wonder how he or she could have been part of a group that rendered (usually) such a sensible verdict. The answer is, there is far more wisdom in most juries than resides in any one of its members.
If the jury is chosen properly, and allowed to see all the law and evidence, then Amen.