The verdict is in – Guilty on four of five counts, but a hung jury mistrial on the fifth and foremost – yet State v. Michael Dunn is far from over. The sentencing phase is still to come, and State’s Attorney Angela Corey has promised a second trial in the death of Jordan Davis.
We’ve now heard from two jurors, both of whom emphatically said race was not an issue in their deliberations. It certainly is to the media, though, and thanks to the media, it’s a huge issue in public opinion.
Pundits are saying that Dunn will spend the rest of his life in prison with multiple twenty-year sentences for attempted murder, including Florida’s mandatory sentencing for crimes committed with guns and shots fired. I won’t be counting those chickens until they’re hatched. That outcome presumes consecutive sentences. The judge, who strikes this writer as having been very fair and impartial throughout the proceeding, has the option of giving the sentences concurrently. By some estimates, that could mean only twenty years total. One pundit expected 80% service of sentence before eligibility for parole: down to sixteen years. Credit for time already served in jail awaiting trial, and Dunn might be down to fifteen years, getting out of prison when he’s still younger than me.
Re-trial? Ms. Corey might want to rethink that. We know now that three people on the jury held out for self-defense in the shooting death of Jordan Davis. 25% of the jury. That smells like reasonable doubt to me. Some of Dunn’s advocates claim the teens were seen removing something from their SUV and hiding it before returning to the shooting scene. I don’t recall any such witness testimony actually going before the jury. However, if such a witness surfaces and proves willing to testify in the second trial, the “phantom shotgun” Dunn claimed Davis wielded is going to be a whole lot more solid, and his story a whole lot more credible, and it could turn into a Not Guilty.
If you haven’t already, go to legalinsurrection.com and read the incisive commentary by Andrew Branca, an attorney and lethal force law expert who sat in the courtroom throughout the Dunn trial, as he did throughout the Zimmerman trial. It’s simply the most bullshit-free analysis of the issues in each case as they unfolded in court. Don’t neglect the extensive reader commentary found with each entry, much of it from seasoned criminal lawyers.
If there is any shotgun that can be found. So be it. Dunn, would be in the right to defend himself. If a man can be proven innocent, I’m all for it.
If Ms Corey retries the case, is that the whole case, or does that leave the convictions standing and just retry the murder charge?
Just to be clear Andrew Branca watched the live feed and live tweeted that. I do agree his commentary is well worth it on this and other court cases.
Now that some of the jurors are willing to talk we can see what insights they had.
Something that has always bothered me is why the lifestyle of the deceased is not admissible in court? They try to pry into the mind of the accused but the lifestyle of the deceased is forbidden. It only seems logical that since he can’t speak for himself, then let’s look at any priors he may have had or other problems that might confirm his proclivities towards violence.
Randy, to the best of my knowledge the slain Jordan Davis had a clean record. In any case, though there are caselaw exceptions in a couple of states, prior bad acts by your assailant, if unknown to you at the time you harmed him, cannot be used in your defense.
Larry Arnold, she gets to retry him only in the death of Jordan Davis. The other counts have already been adjudicated as of the jury’s verdicts.
Judges love to tell jurors they are to restrict themselves to deciding the facts and let the interpretation of the law to the judge. But it appears many of the jurors were struggling with just how to interpret and apply some very complex laws. Justice in America.
If there was a shotgun that was dumped elsewhere, as you stated before Mas, Dunn did himself a huge disservice by not calling the police immediately, so they could search for the SUV and the shotgun right away.
But one other thing that strikes me odd is that if you have a shotgun, and some guy all of a sudden starts shooting you, no matter how you think it might look to a jury at that point who started it, don’t you shoot back?
One other thing I think might be a possibility is that there WAS an object wielded by Davis, that looked like a shotgun (either intentionally or not), and the kids dumped it when they realized what was going to be incriminating. I don’t know, all of this seems really far-fetched. I’m surprised with the verdict, the case seemed to me like obvious 2nd degree murder.
Mas,
Thanks for the link to Legal Insurrection. I would not have found it on my own. It is an interesting and enlightening site. I enjoyed Branca’s article regarding E.J. Dionne and his apparent complete lack of understanding of SYG and its relevance to the Dunn case. While there, I also enjoyed (seriously) the link to The Five Stairsteps singing “OOH Child”. Once you have watched Soul Train, it is hard to get the memory out of your head.
“And it could turn into a Not Guilty”, would that really be of significant difference than the current No-Decision we now have for the murder charge against Dunn, if Corey decides not to retry? Or are you saying a Not Guilty for murder in a second trial may somehow be used to overturn the lesser convictions levied on Dunn thus far?
As to consecutive or concurrent, I believe I have read somewhere that the Florida Supreme Court is now, or shortly will be ruling on whether or not mandatory consecutive sentences in the 10-20-life statute are constitutional.
I realize that jury decisions are what the state must use in determining whether an accused can be punished or not, but as an outside observer, I have a hard time giving jury decisions much credence at all. (e.g., OJ, Casey, Lorena B and the British Nanny) Actually the British Nanny decision worked the other way around as the jury convicted her of Second Degree Murder and the judge found that verdict so blatantly wrong, he overturned the juries decision and reduced her conviction to involuntary manslaughter.
Mas,
I am hearing a lot of feedback from ordinary folks and some retired law enforcement; mostly negative concerning the outcomes of this Dunn and similar stories from all over the nation anything they can read. Comments such as “boy you better not ever shoot anyone”, “Zimmerman did us in”. Another said he and his wife stopped carrying… It really seems like the biased media is ratcheting up these questionable shootings making them front and center…
Mas, How do you feel God forbid with public emptions running so high anyone of us is forced to use our firearm to lawfully defend ourselves? Do you feel we would have a much higher thresh hold to meet? I certainly would appreciate your expertise on this.
William, right now he stands convicted of four crimes and the fifth, the murder charge re Jordan Davis, hangs over his head.
Jack, I think your friends are overreacting. The Zimmerman and Dunn trials both came to logical conclusions, and would have probably come out the same ten, twenty, or thirty years ago. Both cases were brought by the same prosecutor and, apart from being grist for anti-gun politicians and columnists, I don’t see either having far-reaching effect except as lessons for those who carry.
Mas, Thank you sir for your reply and wisdom on this.
Thank you for the link to Legal Insurrection — excellent
I want to chime in again about the link to LI. The story refuting E J Dionne was one of the clearest and most solid explanations of how SYG and self defense laws work. I know I have heard your description on the 3 prongs of self defense’s requirement for “reasonable fear of life”, but not the 5 points that LI brings up.
Excellent excellent article, and I think everyone should read it, from both sides.
Using reason, logic and facts when refuting a liberal such as Mr. Dionne is an exercise in frustration and futility. They do not care about facts and logic, only their emotion driven, knee jerk reaction.
Mr. Dionne does not believe anyone should own firearms for any purpose, thinks the 2nd Amendment is outdated and does not mean what it says, believes the police will protect you, and that if you are only nice to thugs they will realize you are a nice person and leave you alone.
You can choose to be either the predator or the prey. Mr. Dionne has made his choice.