I'm old, stuck in my ways — inflexible and very reluctant to change. We all know how "old" guys are. But … I'm wavering. Always was dead-set against sequestering a jury, thinking it's too hard on the jurors, particularly in long, drawn-out cases. Juror B37's interview with Anderson Cooper following the verdict in the Trayvon Martin shooting was riveting. She seemed extraordinarily favorable to Zimmerman, or "George," as she so frequently referred to him. I was amazed at the thoroughness of her Zimmerman leanings and even felt it unfair. However, her thoughts, comments and insights seemed dead-on, and she convinced me.
But then a couple of days later, she issued a "clarification," and, all of a sudden, her bottom line seemed to swing 180 degrees, and she was most sympathetic to the Martin side. What happened? Seems like someone (her attorney husband, friends, other jurors, media?) got to her and convinced her out of or away from her original thoughts. Bam! On goes the light. Au contraire, I thought: Maybe sequestration in high-profile cases is not such a bad idea after all. Seems like jurors should decide a case without being swayed by outsiders or others.
