by: The Civil Writer
One of the things I have found most interesting about the Zimmerman trial, that I haven’t had an opportunity to fully explore in conversation is how the issue of identity politics played into the jury and jury selection.
The prosecution banked on the fact that the identity of mothers on the jury would prevail over all else and carry the sympathy factor. While it is less clear which factor the defense felt would trump (race, or gun ownership, for example), they clearly weren’t as concerned about the fact that there would be mothers on the jury–or, they gambled that the mother-piece could be just as advantageous to their client if they could show Zimmerman to have acted out of fear for his life. Whatever the point(s) they used, the defense made a better calculation in this vein.
| The mysterious Juror B37 |
I do not think the prosecution gave the proper amount of credence to race in terms of identity politics. There may have been an underestimating of whether white jurors might feel some commonality with Zimmerman because of his race or be susceptible to buying into the aggressive demonization of Trayvon Martin by the defense. Part of how this can so easily occur is for folks who do not regularly deal with race as part of their every day existence, the blinders that they have on cannot easily be lifted.
They missed this because they would not be called to think about this, normally, in any complex, critical or multi-faceted manner. (SN: How you allow a juror to sit when she refers to a victim as a “boy of color” escapes me but, I digress.). It isn’t as simple as making a determination about whether someone is a racist–the racial element of this trial was much more complicated than that. It extends to being able to understand and rank how important race is when you are discussing identity politics and how they would impact this particular situation.
Suffice to say, when it is a matter of life and death, freedom v. jail, innocence v. guilt, race might not trump all…but, it’s pretty damn high.