The prosecution has refused to comment on the glaring omission that there are no black people on the jury. The defense had this to say on the subject:
“People can look at it and have this response, that there’s no blacks on the jury, or no this or no that, or no men on the jury,” he said. “Tell me that we did something wrong in the process and I’ll agree with you.”Sure. That seems reasonable. You could look at a case that has been and continues to be tried in the press on racist narratives about a Scary Young Black Man who was once photographed wearing a hoodie and may have flipped someone off at one time in his life and note that not a single black person is going to be on the jury that decides whether his murder was legally murder or not. Or you could note that the jury appears to be made up entirely of lady-persons and how terrible that is. Both of these things seem pretty equally bad here.
It needs to be said that one marginalized group (such as, for example, white women) is not the same as another marginalized group (such as, for example, black men). They're not interchangeable, and white women are fully capable of being racist.
Possibly my favorite part of this story, though, is the statement in the Washington Post that:
The central Florida community of Sanford is in Seminole County, which is 78.5 percent white and 16.5 percent black, roughly mirroring the jury’s racial makeup.Roughly mirroring the jury's racial makeup. As long as 16% is the new zero. Or to quote Melissa in private conversation: Math is hard.