I smell a rat ...

                                                  and her name is Juror B37

(7/17/13 I have an update at the bottom)

Yes, I did not follow the Trayvon Martin trial. However, I did follow the jury during and after the verdict was announced. I was somewhat surprised that a jury would convict an unarmed boy who was minding his own business until being accosted by an armed white guy. 

For further evidence about this analysis, I refer you to a great legal mind: John Oliver <http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/07/16/john-oliver-highlights-blatant-racial-double-standard-in-floridas-self-defense-laws-2/>.

Still, that is the way the system works, and if this had been two white guys or two black guys, the live one would be preparing some serious time in the penal system of Florida.

Enter juror B37. 

First, I really believe that members of juries should be constrained from talking about cases on which they serve. I think that the system works better that way. 

Second, any juror in any trial should be precluded from making any money out of a tragedy like this. The first amendment does have some limitations.

This juror decided to take to the airwaves to generate interest in the book that she was going to write about their deliberations. She even had a literary agency lined up to buy it -- Martin Literary Management, which announced on Monday that it was representing this juror and her husband. 

Enter another sleazy character -- the juror's husband just happened to be an attorney. His name and that of his firm -- or job -- should be released. He was certainly a player in this scenario.

However, let us go back a minute to what this sleazy juror said earlier in Monday's interview. When the jurors were polled at the start, there was a 3-3 split -- half on each side -- which would have been horrible for this woman's book deal. A hung jury was untenable. It would ruin what this woman and her hubby had concocted. 

Therefore, it was incumbent on this woman to ensure that the white guy -- Zimmerman -- won the case. If it went the other way and the blacks won, the people in Florida would have been outraged, and her book deal would have been finished.

Probably a type A character, she undoubtedly cajoled the other three to change their views. I know one thing: If I as a juror believe that someone is guilty of manslaughter, or murder, I am certainly not going to change my mind about a decision. A hung jury is how the system works -- not the way it finally played out.

I think that the Justice Department should stop their investigation of this case as a racial one, since that will not fly. 

However, jury misconduct can be a violation of federal laws -- and state laws. 

This juror opened up my eyes to some nefarious activities on her part.

She and her husband, however, did not foresee the animus that freeing Zimmerman would cause in the general public. Therefore, Sharlene Martin, the literary agent, said Monday night that "the juror had dropped the book idea," according to the AP. 

The AP quote from this juror, whose name should be released to the public, tried to blame "being sequestered had kept her shielded  'from the depth of pain that exists among the general public over every aspect of the case'." 

The juror said that the book was meant to show that our justice system "can get so complicated that it creates a conflict with our 'spirit' of justice."

Spirit of justice? Jury duty is supposed to be public service, and all that this woman and her husband saw were dollar signs.

That is an outrage and an abuse of the judicial system. 

Now, we really need a special prosecutor.

Update

The plot thickens, and I believe that I was right in my analysis of the situation. In fact, with what came to light from four of the other jurors today, that juror was simply and was trying to make some big bucks.

According to the AP, here is what happened on Tuesday evening:

ORLANDO, Fla. (AP) — Four of the jurors at the George Zimmerman trial distanced themselves late Tuesday from statements that another juror made in a televised interview.

The four jurors issued a brief statement on court stationary saying that the opinions expressed by Juror B37 to CNN‘s Anderson Cooper on Monday night are not representative of their views.

 http://nation.time.com/2013/07/17/4-zimmerman-jurors-speak-out-against-juror-b37/#ixzz2ZLD7O4Kv

If you read through the stories today, they are very consistent that these four jurors are distancing themselves from this one. 

The other four jurors requested privacy, and even if a person disagrees with their final decision, they were doing their job in a very difficult case. 

As for the juror who tried to make some big bucks, she and her husband should be identified, and authorities should investigate what she did in the process.

On another area, Zimmerman has called himself Hispanic, but that is not really a race. The media referred to Zimmerman as a white Hispanic, and I let that carry the day/ 

July 17, 2013