We've been out all evening. Took my wife to pick up her CCW license, then we took the girls to a summer festival at a local school for the blind, and then dinner. So, I just got back to catch up on the "jury question".

My suspicion, reading through everything? Somebody wants to know if Zimmerman can be found guilty of manslaughter for a "negligent act" (i.e. getting out of the truck).

Once that question is answered (no, he can't), the holdout will be forced to admit that the State presented no evidence of a deliberate act of Zimmerman's that caused the physical altercation, and they'll acquit.

We've been out all evening. Took my wife to pick up her CCW license, then we took the girls to a summer festival at a local school for the blind, and then dinner. So, I just got back to catch up on the "jury question".

My suspicion, reading through everything? Somebody wants to know if Zimmerman can be found guilty of manslaughter for a "negligent act" (i.e. getting out of the truck).

Once that question is answered (no, he can't), the holdout will be forced to admit that the State presented no evidence of a deliberate act of Zimmerman's that caused the physical altercation, and they'll acquit.

Not quite.

The jury just sent out a question asking for clarification on manslaughter with no specifics.

The Judge has now sent back a note to get more specific as to what their question is. The jury went to supper for an hour and we are waiting for their response.

Once that question is answered (no, he can't), the holdout will be forced to admit that the State presented no evidence of a deliberate act of Zimmerman's that caused the physical altercation, and they'll acquit.

Thanks, Chip. I respect your opinion, and I hope you are right.

I don't get the "not quite". Since the jury wasn't specific regarding the nature of their question, it could be anything. Thus, my speculation.

(And, nice to know that Jeralyn seems to think it plausible that the jurors are taking the instructions page-by-page, have dismissed second-degree murder, and have not yet taken up the matter of self-defense.)

Zimmerman Jury Has Question on Manslaughter

Update: The jury has ordered in dinner. The parties and judge agreed the judge will respond to the jury's question as follows:

The court cannot engage in general discussion but may be able to address a specific question regarding clarification of the instructions regarding manslaughter. if you have a specific question please submit it.

What this means: The jury had a question on manslaughter and wanted to ask the judge about it. The jury didn't specify what question they had. The parties submitted case law about the extent to which a judge can meet with a jury to answer questions about the law. They agreed upon a response which tells them they to submit a more specific question and the judge will try to answer it.

See original post below: If the jury is following the court's instructions, their consideration of manslaughter means they have rejected Murder 2 but it does not mean they have considered or rejected self-defense. They may or may not have gotten to self-defense yet.

...

My husband and I have discussed that very point several times... But don't think it's limited to Florida. It could happen anywhere in the US.

If George gets acquitted ... I'll take the result... but as I have said I am VERY disappointed that it was not a quick decision. Even if they now acquit... they really did not get it. I assume this sort of travesty is already repeated with other defendants.... and certainly will again in the future... having got away with it ... and fooled a jury into thinking there has been a valid case presented.

h/t Chip
Read more at TalkLeft.

If George gets acquitted ... I'll take the result... but as I have said I am VERY disappointed that it was not a quick decision. Even if they now acquit... they really did not get it. I assume this sort of travesty is already repeated with other defendants.... and certainly will again in the future... having got away with it ... and fooled a jury into thinking there has been a valid case presented.

Question for the lawyers: why aren't the affirmative defense instructions listed first, before the instructions on the charges? Wouldn't that make more sense?

It seems it's TRADITIONAL... there was some attempt by West to get things ordered differently. Nelson said Defence always want that... but this is how it is.

It could just be one juror not the whole jury.