We The Zimmerman Jury, After Consulting With Our Agents, Find The Defendant….



At what point in time did jury duty become a business opportunity for jurors?

In the case of George Zimmerman Juror B-37, did that occur before or after the verdict was announced late Saturday night, July 13, 2013.

Could it have been during voir dire?  Or during the trial?

It’s hard to believe that it was not before the verdict.  I say that because less than two days after the verdict, Juror B-37 was on CNN telling Anderson Cooper that she going to cash in on her jury duty by writing a book. And she had already hired an agent.  That was a busy 40 hours.

Or was it 40 hours?

How do we know that a family member, at the behest of B-37, wasn’t lining up an agent before the verdict came in?

One thing clear is that B-37 (I’m pretty sure she will not publish under that name) is not the first “juror turned writer” giving us the inside scoop  of the latest “trial of the century”.

Here are just some of my favorites.

Remember the 1990’s trials of the Menendez brothers, the California siblings who murdered their parents? A juror named Hazel Thornton kept a diary of the first trial.  If you have nothing else  to do…and I mean really nothing else to do… check out her inside story: “Hung Jury: The Diary of a Menendez Juror.”

It should come as no surprise that an O.J. Simpson juror followed up in 1995.  What might surprise you is that four of those jurors turned author. The first was Michael Know with “The Private Diary of an OJ Juror.”  Not to be outdone three other members of jury, Amanda Cooley, Carrie Bess and Marsha Rubin-Jackson, cashed in with “Madam Foreman: A Rush To Judgement?”

If three jurors writing a book is better than one, how about the seven who penned “We, The Jury—Deciding The Scott Peterson Case?”

Want something a bit closer to home? Try Dennis DeMartin’s self-published book. The 32 pages purportedly gives the inside scoop of the trial of Palm Beach polo and air conditioning mogul John Goodman who killed someone while driving drunk.

None of this would matter…except that it does.

The appearance of a miscarriage of justice is just as damaging as the real thing. Both undermine the public’s confidence the judiciary.

How can we have complete trust in the jury system if we have to be concerned that juror conduct and deliberation may have a financial implication?

Do you think a Guilty, Not Guilty or a hung jury would sell more books?

Do we really want a system where we have to consider that possibility?

So here are a couple of proposals to take the money option out of the process:

The Legislature passes a law creating a five-year ban on jurors seeking financial gain from jury service.  (You think George Zimmerman will be of interest in 2018?  I doubt it.)  But, let me be the first to state that this type of law might run afoul of The First Amendment.

So maybe we should turn this over to the Judge during voir dire by asking all potential jurors if they will agree, under oath, to a five year commitment.

Saying “no” would not automatically disqualify a juror.  However, either side could strike any and all jurors who refuse to agree.

Nobody can say that injecting a financial element in jury duty alters the outcome.  On the other hand, no one can say it doesn’t.

And that’s the problem.

19 Responses to “We The Zimmerman Jury, After Consulting With Our Agents, Find The Defendant….”

  1. Fields Wrong Again says:

    Non-story, Sam. The juror already said she isn’t going to write a book.

    “One day after announcing that she had found an agent — and appearing on CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360 obscured by shadow — the unnamed juror did a quick about-face.

    Being sequestered, she wrote in a statement, “shielded me from the depth of pain that exists among the general public over every aspect of this case.”

    “Now that I am returned to my family and to society in general, I have realized that the best direction for me to go is away from writing any sort of book and return instead to my life as it was before I was called to sit on this jury,” she wrote.

    Her agent, Sharlene Martin of Martin Literary Management in Washington state, Tweeted that she had rescinded her offer of representation to Juror B37.

    Juror B37 was part of the six-member jury that found Zimmerman not guilty in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin. She has not yet revealed her identity.

    What is known about her, according to comments she gave during pre-trial interviews: she is middle-aged, has two grown children, once had a license to carry a concealed weapon and worked for a chiropractor for 16 years. She is also an animal lover.

    The judge in the case has said the clerk’s office will not make public the names of the jurors for a matter of months. That, however, doesn’t ban jurors speaking out.”


  2. Duke says:

    When the book comes out, I hope they have a talking version with the theme song from “In The Heat of The Night” playing in the background. Apparently, George Zimmerman is not the only crazy ass cracka in Sanford, Florida.

  3. SAM FIELDS says:

    Dear Fields is Wrong,
    Fields is NOT wrong. Whether or not B-37 ultimately profits is irrelevant. What matters is that during her jury service this profit motive may or may not have been part of the deliberation equation.

    You don’t “unring” the bell by terminating the book contract.

    How do you think you might feel if you were on the losing side of litigation only to find jurors were trying to make a buck off of your trial.

    I am damn sure that if Zimmerman had been convicted his lawyers would have incorporated this into a Motion for a New Trial and demanded an evidentiary hearing with B-37 on the witness stand.

    If they did anything less they would be malpracticing.

  4. Ghost of McLovin says:


  5. Sam The Sham says:

    Typical of Sam Fields. When something doesn’t go his way, his first reaction is to call for the suspension of our Constitutionally protected rights.

  6. Defense Investigator says:


    As a criminal defense attorney, aren’t you the least bit interested in hearing why/how she came to her decision? Interviewing a juror post verdict is an amazing insight into the effectiveness (or lack there of) of a lawyer or case.

    I found it fascinating that the juror parroted O’Mara’s defenses as her explanation for everything. She also described the effectiveness of the animation.

    So while certainly, her book that she was going to write with her lawyer husband may be noteworthy, I chose to look at what she said…

    It was a loser case from the beginning though… She followed the law

  7. Duke says:

    She did not follow the law. The judge botched the jury instructions.
    B-37 is a lying,racist bitch.That is how she came to her conclusion. All her so called explanations are BS. I’ve seen too many cases prosecuted where not only did they not have an eye witness, they had no body. If this case happens anywhere south of Lake Okeechobee, Zimmerman is toast. All they had to do was connect the dots. I knew when none of the jurors could look Sybrina Fulton in the face that none of them had the least bit of interest in connecting the dots. From the time the kid took that bullet until the time that verdict was read, the out of towners were never getting any consideration from anyone in Sanford, Florida. All the help they got came from outside. Zimmerman was right about one thing. It’s all God’s plan. I just don’t think he knows what the true plan is.

  8. Duke says:

    Sanford, Florida is a cesspool. Those cops who bungled the investigation and the jurors who let a murderer go free are just a bunch of turds floating around it.

  9. Christine says:

    Stop beating a dead horse.

  10. Defense Investigator says:


    Is it possible that her husband the LAWYER brokered the book deal without her knowledge prior to the verdict?

    The premise of the book was to be a look at what she and her husband went through…

  11. Sam The Sham says:

    Duke, Next time they bring that little paper cup of meds at the hospital where you are currently, um, residing, I suggest you take them.

  12. Your Pal Al Lameberti says:

    Duke..you are a racist POS. The only one that bungled anything were Trayon and GZ. Go hang out with your bigot buddy terrorist lawyer Eric Holder. The jury followed the LAW. I’m sorry if that doesn’t fit your KKK mentality.

  13. Alice in Wonderland says:

    Mr Flealds,

    B-37 was or is attempting to be just as slimy and unscrupulous as the specially appointed state attorney & judge.

  14. SAM FIELDS says:

    It’s interesting how my critics are attacking my view on the Zimmerman verdict. Most interesting is that I have yet to express my view.

    I am only interested in the conduct of B-37 regardless of the verdict.

    Defense Investigator can speculate that the book deal was husband operating on his own. I don’t know who or when this idea popped up.

    But, like anything else that casts a pall of suspicion on verdicts, it sucks!

  15. PandaBear says:

    Why didn’t they give this woman a different id number rather than Lockheed’s Model 437?

  16. Duke says:

    She needs to choose her words more carefully. She’s giving away the fact that her husband knew O’Mara. The literary agent caught on fast and dropped her like a hot potato. She lied when she said she was not familiar with the case. She’s an animal lover. Had Zimmmerman shot a stray dog, she would have gladly sent him to prison. But he didn’t shoot a dog. He shot a 17 year old black kid. I will continue to pray for this kid’s mom and dad and won’t be too surprised when Zimmerman resurfaces again under adverse circumstances. it won’t take him long to fck up again.

  17. Duke says:

    Even if the prosecutor would have done his job and shown the jurors the true source of Zimmerman’s facial injuries, would it have mattered? The two identical sized pinholes at the tip of the nose and the rectangular shaped cut above the upper lip are a text book case of gun recoil. Tons of user reviews and videos online. That’s why none of that blood on GZ’s face got anywhere on the kid. He did not start bleeding from the face until he shot the kid and his gun kicked back and hit him in the face. I hope the family’s civil lawyers are not as clueless. What say you Mr. Fields?

  18. SAM FIELDS says:

    I have always lived in a house that had guns. Nevertheless, I don’t know enough about firearms forensics to opine on that one.

    But I am sure that any P.I. lawyer worth his salt will hire someone to explore that option.

    I would note this. Don’t expect a second trial. Martin’s family will be suing the Homeowners Association along with GZ because he was clearly operating under their authority.

    That said, there is probably an insurance policy. The company will seek to settle the case by offering up the policy (think 1 million).

  19. Christine says:


    The Martin’s already sued the HOA. They accepted the settlement .