Jeralyn Merritt of TalkLeft has an excellent summary of the points brought up by the Juror B37. This is probably the most comprehensive summary that I have seen regarding her interview.
I encourage you to read Jeralyn’s post for yourself. The take away points for me happened to be the explanation of the the way in which the jurors came to agree on the not guilty verdict.
As is normal in a jury room (I have never been on one, and was able to get out of jury duty), the 6 jurors took a vote, and the first vote was 3 not guilty, 2 for manslaughter and 1 for murder in the 2nd degree. That was before they read the jury instructions. From that point they looked at 2nd degree murder first then all 6 agreed that it was not appropriate. They then looked at manslaughter and sent out the question.
The point is that they figured out for themselves that manslaughter was out as well and that left self-defense.
Another point of interest is who the jury found to be credible and who was not credible. They found George Zimmerman to be a credible witness via the video tapes that were admitted into evidence. In fact the juror thought that some things might have been embellished. Their most credible witness was Mr. Donnelly the ex-Vietnam veteran and medic. They discounted the family witnesses in regard to identifying the voice. Only one juror thought that the voice might have been Trayvon Martin (I assume that she was the murder 2 holdout). They did not find Rachael Jeantel to be credible.
However, what the jury decided in the end happened to be the final seconds were in fact the most important. They accepted that George thought Trayvon Martin was reaching for the gun. They accepted that he believed that he was in imminent danger which is the only criteria for determining self-defense in regard to this particular case.