Juror B37 Proves Prosecution Failed To ‘Humanize Trayvon Martin,’ Analysts Say

Last night’s Juror B37 interview was eye opening to a public still mixed up over the Trayvon Martin case, and the appearance was sort of a sucker punch to those still reeling and dismayed after George Zimmerman’s controversial acquittal.

If Juror B37 had hoped to put minds at ease about what went into the decision to acquit Zimmerman on all charges Saturday night, that may have backfired. What she meant to convey is not clear, but the impression given during the interview was one of a woman who strongly identified not with the victim in the case, but with the man on trial for his alleged murder — which is somewhat of a prosecution’s death knell.

One shocking moment came when B37 told Anderson Cooper:

It was just hard, thinking that somebody lost their life, and there’s nothing else that could be done about it. I mean, it’s what happened. It’s sad. It’s a tragedy this happened, but it happened. And I think both were responsible for the situation they had gotten themselves into. I think both of them could have walked away. It just didn’t happen.

When asked by a stunned Cooper if she felt bad for Trayvon Martin, B37’s reply was one that cause a lot of buzz and upset. Instead of speaking just to the slain teen, the juror said:

I feel sorry for both of them. I feel sorry for Trayvon, in the situation he was in. And I feel sorry for George because of the situation he got himself in.

This, some experts say, highlights a key failing in the prosecution’s case — one that made Martin seem more like a human being to the jury. It wasn’t just Martin B37 found to be nearly foreign. The juror also said that Rachel Jeantel must have been “embarrassed” about her lack of “education.”

(Jeantel is fluent in three languages, and cursive is no longer taught in many high schools.) B37 opined the teenager “felt inadequate toward everyone because of her education and her communication skills,” adding she “just felt sadness for her.”

Expert Susan Constantine explains B37’s bizarre sympathy for the defendant and not the victim, saying:

“She (Juror B-37) was more empathic to the living than the dead… The state really needed to work with her. I would have done almost a memorial about Trayvon Martin. I would have shown these are the things he’s not going to be able to do: He’ll never have a family or he’ll never see his graduation.”

Jules Epstein, law professor at Widener University School of Law, was more forward in dissecting the undertones of Juror B37’s interview. Epstein explains the subtleties were hard to hear, but there:

The juror’s comments about Rachel Jeantel typecast her as an inarticulate person… This juror’s comments show where the issue of race and racial perceptions may have come into play.

What did you think of Juror B37’s comments last night?