This is the juror’s oath from wikipedia:-
In the United States, a federal juror’s oath usually states something to the effect of, “Do you and each of you solemnly swear that you will well and truly try and a true deliverance make between the United States and ______, the defendant at the bar, and a true verdict render according to the evidence, so help you God?”
“You, as jurors, are the judges of the facts. But in determining what actually happened–that is, in reaching your decision as to the facts – it is your sworn duty to follow all of the rules of law as I explain them to you.
It is also your duty to base your verdict solely upon the evidence, without prejudice or sympathy. That was the promise you made and the oath you took.
What do you do when the law is an ass?
I do not know the testimony that was given in the case but it appears that Zimmerman has escaped because he did not intend to kill the boy as B29 says in this clip:-
As far as I understand it when the law is not clear then judicial decisions can make the law. In this case the law could have been made by the jurors to punish Zimmerman.
In such situations it is often the judge who guides the jury. Using the quote from Wikipedia above, the jurors would have to go against the judge’s instructions – again I am making a presumption concerning the judge’s instructions. But the judge could have instructed the jurors to be concerned about justice, the judge could have sought a decision based on a need for justice and as such could have enabled case law that would prevent future racial killings. This killing might have happened if the youth was white with a trigger-happy nightwatchman, but it will definitely have happened if a youth is black. The death of a “Trayvon Martin” was bound to happen sooner or later.
I suspect the choice of the judge, I question his instructions, and it is time that these system puppets who are lynch-pins to the judicial system are placed under question.
Here is further discussion from Democracy Now:-
Based on the legal discussion of Seema Iyer in this Democracy Now, the legal question of intention has been misrepresented. Perhaps Zimmerman did not intend to kill the boy, but he did intend to shoot thus committing the crime of manslaughter. Why was this not made clear during the court case or by the judge? If the jury was instructed to follow the law – an instruction that in some cases of breaking ground might well be circumvented, then that law needs to have been properly examined. It appears that it wasn’t.
In the Democracy now clip the lawyer casts aspersions on the juror B29, but perhaps more importantly it appears evident that the prosecution failed to do their job. Zimmerman shot the boy, and he got off. The prosecution failed. If they didn’t do their job isn’t that sufficient to ask for a retrial?
But you have to ask, in Sanford County, 70% white, within the racial turmoil of Florida did they want the prosecution to do their job?