The prosecutor delayed justice to Jordan Davis and his family

[morningfog]

First of all, no justice has been denied. It is still an open case. There is not a conclusion yet. There is a hung jury and their will be another trial or a plea. The prosecutor is the cause of this delay (and the additional resources that will go to a second trial).

She fucked up going for first degree murder. She unnecessarily complicated the jury deliberations. The jury convicted on 3 counts of attempted 2nd degree murder. It is quite clear that if they had only had to decide whether the death was second degree murder or not, they would have convicted. When they had to debate whether it was first of second, there were divisions.

The blame here for the delay is on the prosecutor.

[Evergreen Emerald]

1. I disagree. It is easy to blame the prosecutor rather than face reality.

The reality is that the case was not overcharged, the jury instructions are not difficult to understand it is not confusing, and we should not undercharge for fear of confusing our citizens. The reality is that the law sucks and racists are on juries.

[bettyellen]

3. and one idiot racist hoped to get him off with self defense for all the shootings....

but the court said they could not. Hence the compromise.

[magical thyme]

14. Really? Has somebody from the jury spoken out about what they got hung on?

Because the last I read, not that long ago, there was no word from the jury yet. And I just googled and came up empty.

We don't know whether they deadlocked on 1st versus 2nd degree, 2nd versus manslaughter, or some combination.

That they found him guilty of 3 counts of 2nd degree attempted murder doesn't tell me anybody was trying to let him off. 2nd degree means he shot with the intent to kill (versus, say, the attempt to scare them off).

Since they believe he shot into the car with the intent to kill, then the question can just as easily be whether or not it was premeditated.

It's entirely possible that someone(s) on the jury believes that it became premeditated the moment he pulled out and loaded his gun. They *know* based on the rest of the conviction that he's got life in prison. They may have decided to hold out for 1st degree murder or re-trial (this time of a felon already convicted of attempted 2nd degree murder) as symbolic justice for his victim and a message to all would-be killers.

[bettyellen]

15. we know- from the jury question Saturday- that someone hoped to apply the "self defense" excuse to

ALL of the bullets he shot at ALL the kids fleeing. So, yes- someone on that jury OBVIOUSLY hoped to argue all of it was self defense, but was unable to use it for anything but the murder.

[magical thyme]

18. ok, that makes sense. I'd forgotten that question.

I still don't blame the prosecution for going for murder 1.

[bettyellen]

20. that question just shocked me! I am surprised more people aren't discussing the implications.

I don't blame them for murder 1 either, but people often believe pre-meditated takes real time.
I am sure they had a jerk trying to claim it was all self defense, and am proud that the jury figured out a way to do an end run around his argument. But damn, if it was only the murder, that same jury would not have been able to convict him of anything. And that is very sad. I am seeing lots of posters accusing others for seeing racism that is not there in this- but damn it- who thinks shooting fleeing teenagers is self defense? Seriously?

[magical thyme]

26. what's amazing to me is that his girlfriend said he never mentioned seeing a gun

for over day. That alone tells me once he realized he was going to be caught, he made that up to give himself self-defense.

Hopefully the retrial will go better for the prosecution. Both sides will have learned from this trial, but the defense case I think seems pretty weak.

And no matter what happens, at least he will be spending the rest of his life in jail thinking about what he did. Whether he's in solitary or in with a crowd, he will be suffering for the rest of his miserable, hateful life.

I listened to much of the taped interviews with his neighbors. He is simply a bully with a gun. Racist, but also mysogenist. And a nasty bully.

[YarnAddict]

2. Did they have the option

of charging him with a hate crime?

[arthritisR_US]

33. I can't see why not and maybe it should be

consider to bolster his state of mind in the case and premeditation.

[IphengeniaBlumgarten]

4. A benefit of charging First Degree...

Is that this caused there to be a 12 person jury and increased the chance of juror of diverse background: there were 2 Blacks, 1 Hispanic and one Asian on this jury.

Remember Zimmerman had only 6 jurors, with only 1 minority member.

Charging First Degree would have still allowed the jurors to convict on either Second Degree or on Manslaughter.

I suspect the problem with the Dunn verdict is that at least one juror believed Dunn's self-defense claim and would not budge. This is not a consequence of the charges, but of some blend of racism and stupidity on the juror's part.

[morningfog]

5. They still had to agree unanimously on the level of criminal liability.

If one was not budging on first, it was irrelevant that 2nd and manslaughter were "available." I suppose we will find out in due time exactly what the hang up was.

[IphengeniaBlumgarten]

6. I did not say one or more jurors was not budging on M1

I said one or more jurors was probably not budging on believing Dunn's claim of self-defense. Thus that juror -- again remember this is conjecture! -- must have stubbornly claimed that Dunn was not guilty of either M1 or M1 or Manslaughter, i.e. that he should be acquitted.

But this is all guessing. Be interesting to see if any of the jurors start of talk about what went on.

[Yo_Mama]

7. How could that be true given the verdicts?

Is it all likely that the same jurors who convicted him on attempted second degree murder would then be split on acquittal for the murder he succeeded in?

You have to explain this thought process to me.

I would bet given the questions they asked that they were split between Murder 1 and Murder 2, because some of them weren't sure about the premeditation.

[IphengeniaBlumgarten]

10. My suggestion is based on the last questions the jurors asked

Remember they asked the judge, towards the end of the deliberations, whether Dunn's claim of self-defense was to be considered for each charge separately -- or whether it just applied to the whole situation. The judge told them it had to be considered with respect to each separate charge.

OK, I THINK (not sure) that Dunn's CLAIM was that Jordan Davis is the one who got out of the car and who seemed to have a gun or maybe a stick or whatever. It don't think Dunn claimed that the other young men did anything threatening. Thus if a juror believed Dunn, the/she/they might have thought Dunn was justified in defending himself against this perceived threat, thus justifying the Jordan Davis shooting as self-defense. But the judge said they had to consider whether self-defense also applied to the attempted murder charges etc. Since the only threat Dunn claimed was from Davis, his continuing to shoot into the car was not judged to be self-defense.

I find this more plausible explanation than the juror's getting hung up so badly on whether it was M1 or M2. I personally think it was M1, but I would have compromised on M2 just to make sure that Dunn was convicted on something.

[Fla Dem]

13. I tend to agree with your thinking.

If the deadlock was between M1/M2 I would think those going for M1 would eventually acquiesce to M2, rather than getting a hung jury and a mistrial. At least with M2 there would be a clear judgment and sentence.

Conversely, if one or more of the juror was going for not guilty, because they felt the shooting justified, they would not acquiesce and compromise their position by allowing a murder judgment against Mr. Dunn.

[magical thyme]

16. well, that makes a lot of sense...

I'd forgotten about that question from the jury...

[arthritisR_US]

35. That is a really good point and it follows the

logic of the question they posed. Do you think if Dunn were charged with murder 2 or manslaughter that a jury would convict? Mind you, in that case it would be only a jury of six.

[arthritisR_US]

34. That is how I see it too. nt

[LisaL]

8. They had an option of lower included crime.

So if they all agreed it was second degree murder, they could have convicted him of that.
Obvoiusly they didn't.

[morningfog]

9. They all had to agree.

It is likely the holdout(s) could have been on a first/second split.

We will eventually know, the jury will eventually tall what happened.

[LisaL]

11. Or they could have been split between not guilty and guilty.

How is that prosecutor's fault for charging with first degree murder?

[morningfog]

12. It just doesn't seem logical that was the split.

They convicted on 3 counts of attempted 2nd. Had they only been given 2nd degree murder, they very well may have agreed.

The prosecutor went with first, raising the possibility that the division was on the premeditation prong.

Of course, if the split were G/NG, the degree charged played a lesser role in the mistrial. I just don't see that as a likely scenario. I don't see how one could convict on attempt, times 3, but not find at least manslaughter. It seems the only logical conclusion is the split was 1st/2nd/manslaughter.

It is called a mistrial, not mis-verdict.

[geek tragedy]

19. The jury could easily have convicted him for the shots he fired at the vehicle as it sped away

but not for the shots he fired at Jordan Davis.

[bettyellen]

21. nope- the split was over self defense for everything- or just the murder. that was what the jury

needed to clarify before reaching a verdict. someone wanted to let him off all of it for self defense.

[morningfog]

23. We don't know that.

They may have even considering the self defense separate from the elements of the crime itself. Time will tell.

[bettyellen]

25. they asked the court if they could, so yes- we know that at least one juror wanted to use self

defense for all the counts. that was what broke the deadlock.

[morningfog]

28. From that question we only know that they sought

clarification on how self defense would apply. You could be right, but I just don't think it went the way you do.

[bettyellen]

29. no, it was IF it could apply to ALL the shots fired. think about that, fleeing innocent kids.

and someone asked is it okay if we consider that self defense too? Yeah, I am judging that juror hard.

[morningfog]

30. You still don't know the reason for the question.

It could reasonably be that they were seeking clarity in the law. What counts were they to consider self D for.

[bettyellen]

32. inform yourself. they asked if it could apply to ALL the shots fired, or just the murder. so the

jury did discuss using the self defense theory for all of it. and that was not a concept introduced in court.
and it is very relevant, and meaningful, and lucky that they got clarification that they were not allowed to let him off due to self defense for everything.

[geek tragedy]

17. Bullshit for numerous reasons.

1) this was premeditated murder, it was murder 1, the charge was correct
2) the jury had the option of convicting on a lesser-included charge, including murder 2. the prosecutor did not prevent them from convicting on murder 2
3) the juror questions from that day strongly suggested that whether he was justified in shooting Jordan Davis was a big issue for at least one juror

[morningfog]

22. They had to have unanimity on the theory.

Time will tell, the jury will talk.

[bettyellen]

24. when they asked if they could use self defense for all the bullets shot, they said enough.

they were wrestling down some juror who wanted to give Dunn an excuse to shoot all of those kids. They took away Dunn's excuse for everything but the murder itself.

[JI7]

27. if a black guy had shot at a group of white kids and everything was the same it would have been an

easy conviction.

[Gothmog]

31. I agree,SYG/ self defense was not the reason for the hunedjury

This case was a weak first degree murder case. I am predicting that the jury was split on the issue of First degree murder vs second degree murder. I doubt that the jury bought the self defense or stand your ground defenses. There was some evidence of premeditation but not enough to justify the risk.

If the prosecutor was going for first degree murder, then she should have asked for the death penalty in order to get a more favorable jury. Death penalty qualified juries tend to convict at a higher rate compared to a jury which was not screened or qualified for the consideration of the death penalty. Some prosecutors ask for the death penalty in order to get the better jury and then drop the death penalty at the end of the trial