I woke up this morning to news that Zimmerman Juror B37 has been dropped by her book agent/decided not to write a book, thanks to the hard work of @moreandagain on Twitter, who lead efforts to stop this.
Here’s the thing I can’t let go of, though. The verdict came out late Saturday night. The first I heard of the agent’s deal was Monday afternoon. And, yes, B37 has a lawyer husband, but the timeline is, let’s be generous, very tight. I’ve signed a few short story contracts now and it takes a few hours to get those deals done, and those are a couple pages, simply written, with pretty standardized language, just because there’s some back and forth. The idea that B37 send out queries on Sunday and had an agent by Monday? Or even that an agent approached her on Sunday and they had everything worked out by Monday?
It could happen. Just like you could and probably have, on occasion, hit every green light on your way into work. But when you factor in that B37 is in Florida and the agent is in Washington, red lights seem more likely than straight-green.
But then take this from the Juror’s statement about why she decided not to go forward with the book:
I realize it was necessary for our jury to be sequestered in order to protest [sic] our verdict from unfair outside influences, but that isolation shielded me from the depth of pain that exists among the general public over every aspect of this case. The potential book was always…
See what I’m getting at? Just when, exactly, did she decide to write this book? Her own statement makes it sound like it was while she was sequestered. You know, while the trial was ongoing. I mean, just how long is “was always” anyway?
If I were the Justice Department, I’d be very interested to know when she got her agent and whether she got on the jury because of the potential for money at the end of things.
And, if I were a more deeply suspicious Justice Department, I might wonder about her calling Zimmerman, “George” during her interview with Anderson Cooper. I might, in fact, be rewatching the parts where she appears to call him “Georgie.” Because I’d be incredibly curious if she’s the kind of person who comes to think they know someone just by being in the same room as him for days without actually interacting with him–and she certainly seems like the type who might–or whether something else was going on.
I’d be curious just how vested an interest she had in the trial’s outcome.
That’s kinda skeevy.
Everything about this particular situation is so gross.
I agree that it’s skeevy, but to the extent that she had a book in her, she had it whichever way the trial played out. I can’t see that hoping for a book deal would have swayed her decision on Zimmerman’s guilt or innocence. Now, if the jury had been deliberating for days, I might well imagine that she had been drawing things out for the drama of it all. But I don’t think that her wanting a book deal means that she corrupted the process.
I agree with nm; while skeevy, I don’t think it corrupted her process. I mean, how many jurors of high profile cases go on to write books? – a fairly decent amount if memory serves. A least one or two from each high profile case here and there, from the little bit of attention I’ve paid.
nm, I’m just saying, if I were the Justice Department, I’d be interested in just when she got this book deal. I think, being a part of a trial and saying to yourself, “Wow, someone should write a book about this and that someone might as well be me,” is fine. Realizing that, if you could get on the jury, you could get a book deal and thus finessing your answers to try to get on the jury is not so fine (though apparently not illegal). But negotiating with an agent while you’re serving? That has to throw up red flags.
And I’d like to know if that’s what happened.