How many of you believe that defendant Zimmerman can have an "impartial jury" empaneled in his trial?  My trouble with this is that any prosspective juror who has not heard , nor read about the case, and who has not formed  an opinion about the case will be non-existent.  Here's what you have to worry about as to prospective jurors : if a prospective juror say  he or she has not heard or read about the case, knows nothing about it and has formed no opinion, what have you got ?  He or she is either lying, or is purposely trying to sit on the jury, or lives in the Twilight Zone.   I would say the voir dire exam alone will take three weeks and might require a second call of propsects.  Things you have to look for: racial bias going both ways; the idea that this is a trial for retribution or revenge, other motives for being on the jury, i.e., the desire for post trial publicity (don't laugh, I've  seem them).  As the Clerk of Court, you've got to make sure that the pool of jurors is racially mixed-close to racial composition in the district itself.  You need three alternates on a trial lasting this long. If you're the prosecution, you want  mothers, especially those with teenage children,  Maybe it is impossible to empanel an impartial jury in this case.   A change of venue would be meaningless in this case. If you waive a jury trial, the presiding judge is going to recuse himself. I would. One question on voir dire has to be:  Would you have a problem with sitting on this jury panel and deliberating, if selected, for up to one month or more?  Tough. .

Guess I'll have to reply to my own  posting.  Not since the Scottsboro Boys has a case  hit  so many raw nerves. Scottsboro is ancient history.  This case has 100 times the publicity of Scottsboro.. More than any case in modern history. Had it been a white-on-white or black -on-black slaying, it would be all but forgotten.  We have become so race sensitive in this country and in our society that the concept of a fair  trial is hard to achieve.  Case is off to a bad start, with the trial judge recusing herself.  It begins.  The DA submitted an indictment foregoing first degree murder.  The family of the deceased took umbrage, condemning the fixing of bond, which is  a Constitutional right, to be an insult. :  It will be impossible to empanel a" fair and impartial jury of peers"  in this case.  If Mr. Z were to be acquitted, he would have to change his name and move out of the country.  He would then become a hunted man.. So there are two scents here: blood and money. Blood has already flowed.  Now, the race is on for money, big money. Hard cases make bad law, I'm afraid...

Can't Zimmerman request a trial by judge?

And if he does, would a judge want to be in the position to acquit Zimmerman and then face the possible threats to his safety that would certainly follow?

Initially the "Justice for Trayvon" campaign was all about making sure Zimmerman was brought before a court of law, but at this point I think Justice for Trayvon will only be considered met if Zimmerman is found guilty.

People are tweeting that the judge should be killed for letting Zimmerman out on bail.

www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/s...dge_640598.html

The NBP is already calling for a full-fledged race war, the burning of the State of FL and an end to capitalism because of this incident.  Killing a judge is just a small step.

Only RW extremists think the New Black Panthers are anything of substance:

As guardian of the true history of the Black Panther Party, the Dr. Huey P. Newton Foundation, which includes former leading members of the Party, denounces this group's exploitation of the Party's name and history. Failing to find its own legitimacy in the black community, this band would graft the Party's name upon itself, which we condemn... [T]hey denigrate the Party's name by promoting concepts absolutely counter to the revolutionary principles on which the Party was founded... The Black Panthers were never a group of angry young militants full of fury toward the "white establishment." The Party operated on love for black people, not hatred of white people.[43]

”

Bobby Seale, one of the co-founding members of the original Black Panther Party, spoke out against the New Black Panther Party. Calling the rhetoric of the New Black Panther Party "xenophobic", he spoke of their remarks as, "absurd, racial, [and] categorical".

“

Just to hate another person because [of] the color of their skin or their ethnicity — we don't do that. That's not what the goal objective is. The goal objective is human liberation. The goal objective is the greater community cooperation and humanism. The goal objective is to get rid of institutionalized racism....[44]

Using the NBPP as a representative of anything on the left is like using the Aryan Nation to represent the right. The reality is the Aryan Nation is a very dangerous group that is committing crimes regularty and the NBPP is a RW boogeyman with no teeth.

This situation and the emotions evident in press write-ups evince  a very dangerous  period in our national life. Under the Sixth Amendment, the defendant is entitled to the fixing of  reasonable bond.   The only reason I could think for holding him is his own safety.  A dispassionate analysis of the facts we know so far, would come closer to a manslaughter  verdict than second degree.  The facts against Zimmerman are that he was carrying a weapon at the time.  Was he looking for trouble? , or was this a chance meeting that turned into the use of excessive force?  If I have reason to comprehend that my life is in dire  jeopardy, I am not held to the standard of a person under no apprehension of life threatning danger.  The jury question will be: At the time of the shooting, did Zimmerman have a reasonable apprehension that his life was in danger.  I believe, on the facts as so far disclosed, Mr. Z will either be found guilty of Manslaughter , a lesser included offense of assault with a deadly weapon, or a hung jury.  I don't believe he will walk.  Someone else, to be sure, will die as a result  of this incident.  Mark it down. Hate to say it, but unless tempers cool, more harm will be done.

Let's tslk sbout the Right to Reasonable bail under the Eighth Amendment.  The fixing
of bail is in the discretion of the Court (usually a first appearance after arrest}  There are two factors in constitutionally fixing bail ;  (1) The seriousness of the charges, and (2) the liklihood that the accused will flee.  The amount of money an individual may have should not  be considered.  The question probably should not be asked.  In this case, "Liberal
Kooks" kept up a drumfire of pressure and the court (contrary to good practice) buckled to curry favor.  The move did greatly please the left and the  black community, and of course, the kook press.  Mrs. Zimmerman's assets should never be involved.  She is not on trial or required to appear.  Now, Z is in jail, unable to assist his lawyers in the preparation of his defense.  That is what the Eighth Amendment is about: being free, as you are merely charged, not convicted, so that you may assist in your upcoming trial. The foregoing may not be pleasing to many, but Zimmerman has entered a plea of Not Guilty and is entitled (yes, entitled) to a fixing of reasonable bail.  The liklihood of him fleeing is Zilch.

Woman accusing Zimmerman of molesting her when he was 7 and she was 6 and that his family doesn't like African-Americans.  Critical evidence against his self-defense claim!

This is a serious problem, because the case and how it is handled will set a precedent in cases of like circumstances. Zimmerman's bail, reset by the court, is excessive. The court was looking for public approval, not to protect the constitutional right of the defendant.  Hard cases make bad law.