Jury chosen in Zimmerman case
Legal Insurrection reports that the jury is chosen. All women, 5 "white," 1 "hispanic." (I guess Florida has six person criminal juries, I forget what the constitutional rules are on that). Alternates are two men and two women.
Interesting that the prosecution got zinged for using pre-emptory challenges on four "white" women, and had two of those disallowed. If your pattern of pre-emptories suggests they're being used on the basis of race or ethnicity, the other side can challenged, and make you explain a good non-racial basis for them. Apparently the State couldn't come up with one for two of its challenges.
An all-female jury seems unusual, although with a six person jury it becomes more likely. A predominantly female jury is a common result, simply because you largely wind up with retirees (an employed person can't take off for weeks), and with women's longer lifespan they make up a bigger fraction of retirees. My mother outlived my father by seven years; my ex mother in law outlived her husband by seventeen.
UPDATE: Here's a discussion of the 6 person jury, at the Volokh Conspiracy.
UPDATE: The defense probably can't get in more evidence about T. Martin because of a quirk in the law of self-defense. Under English common law, the test for that was whether the defender's actions were necessary to protect against death or great bodily injury. American law transmuted that into whether the defender had a reasonable belief that his actions were necessary to defend against death or great bodily injury. Generally that favors the defender, but it hurts him where there is evidence that his actions really were necessary, but for reasons he did not know. A belief cannot be based upon data that the person did not know. That's probably the situation here. I've got a draft for self defense law here that would broaden that to cover cases where either the use of force was necessary, or the defender reasonably believed it was necessary.
UPDATE: Yep, the prosecution can make it relevant, unintentionally. That happened here, in the Harold Fish case. Fish claimed that the guy he shot ran at him, fists clenched, arms windmilling as he came on. In fact that guy had gotten into one or two fights where he began just that way. Judge ruled those fights couldn't come into evidence: they couldn't have been a basis for Fish having a reasonable belief, since he hadn't heard of them at the time. Court of Appeals reversed, confirming that general rule, but ruling that since the prosecutor had ridiculed the claim that someone charged with fists windmilling, it should been allowed in.
Interesting question: since Heller concludes that self-defense is a right, and the underpinnings of the 2A, could it argued that whether a person in reality had to act to defend their life is relevant, whether or not they knew of the other events? Why would a constitutional right depend upon belief but not upon reality?