Maddy, aka Juror B29, is indisputably incoherent.

Yet I have not seen any real challenge to her statements.  If there is a voice of reason challenging her stupidity, it would seem to be meek in comparison to the support and communicable inflammation/incitement coming from most pundits and commentators.

Recall that the  role of "the jury is to determine the facts of this case.  You are the sole and exclusive judges of the facts.  You alone determine what evidence to accept, how important any evidence is that you do accept, and what conclusions to draw from all the evidence. You must apply the law[.]"

Essentially, the jury applies the law to the evidence to arrive at its verdict.

Here are excerpts from her much-heralded interview on GMA:

The only minority on the all-female jury in the Trayvon Martin case says George Zimmerman "got away with murder" when he fatally shot the black 17-year-old...

"For myself, he's guilty because the evidence shows he's guilty," the juror said.

Really?

But the juror, a 36-year-old mother of eight who moved to Florida from Chicago five months before she was selected for the trial, says the panel had no choice but to acquit Zimmerman, based on the law and evidence.

That was her job.  The evidence did not support any other choice.

"As much as we were trying to find this man guilty...they give you a booklet that basically tells you the truth, and the truth is that there was nothing that we could do about it," she said[.]

Bummer.

Clearly, truth is a problem for her.  Perhaps she is better referred to as Mendacious Mandy.

Forgetting the clearly prejudicial "we were trying to find this man guilty" part, apparently "we" is being used in the "royal we" sense and is not representative of the panel:

Maddy's approach contrasted sharply with that of Juror B37, who was first to speak out. That panelist, a white woman interviewed anonymously on CNN, expressed sympathy for Zimmerman and said Trayvon was partly responsible for his own death.

So it really is not "we," so it appears.

Maddy, continues:

Maddy said that when the jury, which included five mothers, began deliberations, she was ready to convict Zimmerman of second-degree murder, which could have put him behind bars for life. "I was the juror that was going to give them the hung jury," she insisted. "I fought to the end."

But after nine hours of reviewing evidence, Maddy decided the jury had to let the neighborhood watchman walk free, she said[.]

Because, why?  "[T]he panel had no choice but to acquit Zimmerman, based on the law and evidence":

"You can't put the man in jail, even though in our hearts we felt he was guilty," said the angst-ridden woman, known during the trial as Juror B29. "But we had to grab our hearts and put it aside and look at the evidence."

Bummer, again, what with having to "look at the evidence."

(There is that" royal we" again, raised by a "royal our.")

Good call.  And evidence that the system works even when what one could only hope is the lowest common denominator gets jury duty.

... Maddy told Roberts. "But as the law was read to me, if you have no proof that he killed him intentionally, you can't say he's guilty."

Then put a sock in it.

Michael Applebaum is a medical doctor and lawyer practicing in Chicago.