Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    Zimmerman Jury Selection June 10th

    Zimmerman Jury Selection June 10th

    For live video and coverage for Tuesday June 11th, click here.

    This post marks the launch of Legal Insurrections’ comprehensive live coverage of State of Florida v. Zimmerman (1712FO4573).

    In addition to the types of comprehensive legal analysis already posted in the course of last week’s pretrial hearings, we are introducing all-day coverage of the trial itself, including a live video feed from the court room and live Twitter feed (embedded at bottom of post) of selected commentators.

    Over the course of the day I’ll include brief commentary on significant events as they occur, complemented by more in-depth analysis as developments warrant.

    Live Stream Video

    (You may hear a brief commercial when you first start it.)

    [Video feed removed end-of-day.]

    Monday, June 10

    Update 5:ooPM:  Done for the day, back again 9AM tomorrow!

    Limited Scope of Today’s “Pre-” Voir Dire

    CONFIRMED:  the scope of this “pre-” voir dire is intended to be limited solely to matters of pre-trial publicity. 

    First Prospective Juror, B12, Being Questioned by State (de la Rionda)

    Jury Questionnaire Review

    This morning 100 prospective jurors completed juror questionnaires.  These are now being independently reviewed by Judge Nelson, the State, and the defense, at which point they will try to identify specific prospective jurors that have deemed at least initially acceptable to all three.

    At 2:10PM, as I write this, there is a bench conference underway, they may be trying to get consensus on first group of prospective jurors for voir dire.

    Morning motions

    A number of motions were heard this morning, immediately prior to the start of jury selection.

    The defense first motioned the court for a continuance on the basis that the State’s slow-rolling of discovery evidence had simply left them unprepared for trial at this time. The additional time required might be a couple of weeks or more—it was hard to tell until they’d had a chance to examine and evaluate the recently delivered discovery, as well as the still to be scheduled deposition of Attorney Crump. The State objected to any continuance, and the Judge Nelson denied the motion. So, no continuance for the defense.

    The defense also raised the matter of its motion in limine to restrict the use of certain inflammatory language during the trial. The Court indicated that she was not ready to rule on that motion, but it was agreed that the inflammatory language of concern would at least not be used during jury selection.

    Finally, the defense asked if there could be a relaxation of certain rules of evidence, given the State’s delay in delivering, and sometimes completely failing to deliver, relevant discovery. Specifically, they asked that if some piece of evidence became relevant and was admissible except for inadequate authentication, and the defense could prove that authentication could not have been completed because of State’s conduct, that the evidence nevertheless be admitted. Judge Nelson stated she would consider that on a instance-by-instance basis.

    Finally, the court described today’s process for jury selection. Another judge was pre-qualifying the entire jury pool, from which 100 prospective jurors would be arbitrarily selected. Those 100 would be given a juror questionnaire. The completed questionnaires would then be reviewed by each counsel. Then each prospective juror would be sent up one at a time for initial voir dire, from which 21 would be selected for full voir dire.  (Voir dire is the process of examining prospective jurors to determine their qualifications and suitability to serve on the jury, and to ensure the selection of fair and impartial jurors.)

    Twitter Feed:

    (My tweets can be identified as coming from @lawselfdefense.)

    Andrew F. Branca is a MA lawyer with a long-standing interest in the law of self defense.  He authored the seminal book “The Law of Self Defense” (second edition shipping June 22–save 30% and pre-order TODAY!), and manages the Law of Self Defense web site and blog.  Many thanks to the Professor for the invitation to guest-blog on the Zimmerman trial here on Legal Insurrection!


    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.


    […] just launched the start of my all-day coverage of State of Florida v. Zimmerman (1712FO4573) over at Legal Insurrection. In addition to the types of comprehensive legal analysis […]

    snopercod | June 10, 2013 at 1:44 pm

    “The video you are trying to watch cannot be viewed from this website”


    That sounds like a fairly good voir dire procedure, but because of the prosecution’s attempts to inflame, the defense should be pushing for voir dire out of the presence of other potential jurors. Perhaps that is what is going on, but I cannot tell from the write-up.
    I had a trial in San Bernardino, California, in which my request for a mistrial during voir dire was granted based on opposing counsel’s misconduct during voir dire. An entirely new set of potential jurors was brought in, and the voir dire of each was conducted out of the presence of other potential jurors.

    ManinBowlerHat | June 10, 2013 at 3:34 pm

    Mr. Branca, I am a bit of a late comer here, so my questions may touch on subjects previously covered. If so, I beg your indulgence.

    I am wondering if there have been any previous defense requests for continuance up to this point?

    Have their been any such requests by the prosecution for any reason to date?

    Is this a capital case? If not, what is the sentencing potential for Mr. Zimmerman should things go south?

    Has a civil suit been filed yet against Mr. Zimmerman?

    I am led to believe that Mr. Zimmerman was lawfully armed at the time of the matter in question. How long had he been a CCW holder? Did he have any handgun training? If so, what did it consist of? What was his weapon of choice that evening (I know you have said it was a 9mm, but I’d like more data, if possible)? What was the load used in the weapon (both in terms of bullet weight and manufacturer)?

    Finally, thank you for taking the time to post this blog. I find it refreshing to get some kind of objective data on a very emotionally charged issue, particularly as it pertains to the laws of self-defense. Having an intelligent, well-versed person taking the time to share his knowledge is gratefully recieved. Just don’t tell your bar association that you are not charging for your legal acumen.

      A lot of questions! I’m listening to the live stream juror questioning at the moment, so I’ll give a quick response now, but it may be a bit vaguer than if I had a few minutes to dig up some facts.

      (1) Continuances. The motion for a continuance this morning follows several earlier such motions by the defense, including another such motion on March 28 and prior. All have been denied by the Court. To my knowledge the State has made no motions for a continuance.

      (2) A civil suit was filed soon after the shooting occurred, and it is my recollection that the housing complex at which events occurred quickly agreed to a settlement.

      (3) Mr. Zimmerman did have a valid and current CCW issued by the state of Florida. A copy of the license is a part of the court record, and it appears to have been issued on 12/17/08 and to expire 12/17/15 (although the copy is very poor), in which case he would have held this license for a bit more than four years at the time of the shooting. Given Mr. Zimmerman’s age at the time of the shooting (28), and the fact that Florida CCW’s issue for a term of 7 years, it is likely that this was his first Florida CCW license.

      The State of Florida requires a demonstration of proficiency as a condition for receiving a CCW, so Mr. Zimmerman would necessary have been required to prove the required level of training.

      The weapon used by Mr. Zimmerman to defend himself was a Kel-Tec model PF-9 pistol, SN: RJY08, in caliber 9mm Luger. The magazine contained six rounds when taken into evidence. The cartridge brass recovered at the scene was stamped as having a 9mm round manufactured by Sellier& Bellot. Four bullet fragments were recovered with a total weight of 115grains S&B manufactures a 115 grain 9mm jacketed hollow-point (JHP) self-defense round (product #: V311422), and this was presumably the round used in this instance.

    Thank you, both Andrew and William, for providing this coverage of the Zimmerman trial. I’m finding the Twitter list y’all have set up really interesting as well.

    I’ve been a lurker here for a good couple of years – finally decided to go ahead and register for an account!

    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend