GUILTY FL - Jordan Davis, 17, shot to death, Satellite Beach, 23 Nov 2012 #8

[Jax49]

I wonder how many of the jurors have spent hours researching the case since they were released from service? I know I would be.

Back in the day, I had my DH save all the newspaper clippings from coverage of the trial where I was a juror. I read everyone of them before I went to sleep that night.

 

[popsicle]

It was Strolla's fault that he got convicted; his father's fault that he didn't give MD all of his hard earned money so that Dunn could hire a dream team; his son's fault for getting married on November 23rd; Rhonda's fault because she just had to have white wine and chips and would not lie for him; and Charlie's fault for being a puppy who had to be let out of his crate.

Oh and lest I forget, it was the fault of the rapper who made the music; Dodge's fault for having screwy doors and making an SUV; Tommy's aunt's fault for letting Tommy drive the car and have sub woofers in it; Apple's fault for making an IPod and IPhone that allows you to download and play music; the jury's fault for being racist and not understand that MD had more value than JD.

Am I close? Lol. JMV

Good post. I don't think he blames charlie tho....I mean afterall, he did speak to him during his prison calls. :floorlaugh:

 

[Bernina]

I watched his testimony after the fact on youtube so could rewind and his detailed and measured account of every single movement and word spoken around the shooting, to me, seemed way too rehearsed and deliberate. In moments like that I don't think people retain that kind of frame by frame detailed memory of every movement they made and sequence of words spoken etc. Unless they are trying to create a story that lines up with a particular defense I mean. It rang very choreographed to me.

I found that being in a situation similar to that, everything went in slow motion and I was more detailed in my first account. Trauma and/or shock can black it out in some cases, like car accident victims, but what I saw in MD's first interrogation was probably about as close to the truth in this situation as he was going to get..........he was not at all phased until the "imagined weapon" turned into a myth.

I also don't know how he passed and received his CCW:
When you have reason to shoot at a human being or human occupied object, and you DO fire, you must:
1. Notify LE
2. Stay at the scene if it is safe
3. Secure your weapon
4. When questioned by LE, responses of all the following:
a. I was in fear for my life (or 3rd party)
b. I am too traumatized to make a statement
c. I want a lawyer
*Note: IF you draw your weapon, you shoot to kill. No warning shots, once your weapon is out of it's holster your intention is to kill.
Standard Operating Procedure. Most CCW classes are taught by working or retired LE, and they drill this into you.

"This s**t is going down" or whatever variant Jordan supposedly said did not include "I am going to beat you up", "I am going to kill you", or anything else specifically to bodily harm. Whether it was truly said, or just an embellishment on MD's part on the stand, it did NOT rise to the need for deadly force. Take into consideration that it was in the parking lot of a busy convenience store, it even seems more absurd.
JMO.

 

[popsicle]

I know the jurors didn't want to be interviewed yesterday but I just did a search and didn't see anything about jurors coming forward since then to answer questions.

Has anyone heard anything about any jurors wanting to come forward?

I expect one or more to turn up on the Today show or GMA...something like that.

 

[turaj]

the more I think about it I do think this was a compromise..whatever juror was having issues with count 1 went along with 2-5 thinking he would not get that much time. To me the whole deal was a package deal and none of the shots were justified least of which the one that killed Jordan. Based on the questions they were deadlocked pretty much all the time...one just would not budge on count 1.

 

[CarolinaMoon]

I was astounded that two important things were not discussed more heavily in this trial.

1. I was shocked to learn the incredible short period of time between Rhonda walking into the little store and the first shots. It was like a minute and a half or some such time. It would be impossible for all of the back and forth trash talk to have occurred the way MD proposed. Just impossible. Why wasn't that more stressed?

2. Remember when the defense was going on an on about the state of mind of MD prior to the shooting? He was happy...he was thrilled... he just came from the son's wedding where he was welcomed with open arms?????

Really? No mention of the fact that MD had only seen his son three times prior to that wedding? No mention that a primary reason for MD NOT to call 911 is the fact that he probably drank LOTS more at that wedding than reported? Not mentioned that he was afraid a blood alcohol test might reveal the true nature of his "state of mind?"


I'm just shocked that these things were not stressed more heavily.

Thanks for listening...

BBM

In one of the early calls to Rhonda, a week after his arrest, MD made the comment he hadn't had a drink in x amount of days. Rhonda commented she had been drinking a lot of wine, enough for both of them.

Makes me think any number of things about the couple's alcohol consumption.

 

[tlcya]

I was astounded that two important things were not discussed more heavily in this trial.

1. I was shocked to learn the incredible short period of time between Rhonda walking into the little store and the first shots. It was like a minute and a half or some such time. It would be impossible for all of the back and forth trash talk to have occurred the way MD proposed. Just impossible. Why wasn't that more stressed?

2. Remember when the defense was going on an on about the state of mind of MD prior to the shooting? He was happy...he was thrilled... he just came from the son's wedding where he was welcomed with open arms?????

Really? No mention of the fact that MD had only seen his son three times prior to that wedding? No mention that a primary reason for MD NOT to call 911 is the fact that he probably drank LOTS more at that wedding than reported? Not mentioned that he was afraid a blood alcohol test might reveal the true nature of his "state of mind?"


I'm just shocked that these things were not stressed more heavily.

Thanks for listening...

To your points, the witnesses testified that the trash talk did happen.

Voluntary intoxication can be used to negate the mens rea (state of mind) for specific intent crimes such as Murder 1 in some jurisdictions with the caveat that I haven't researched it in Florida.

~snipped from the link

In some jurisdictions, intoxication may negate specific intent, a particular kind of mens rea applicable only to some crimes. For example, lack of specific intent might reduce murder to manslaughter. Voluntary intoxication nevertheless often will provide basic intent, e.g., the intent required for manslaughter.[8] On the other hand, involuntarily intoxication, for example by punch spiked unforeseeably with alcohol, may give rise to no inference of basic intent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_defenses#Intoxication

you both raise good points. I don't think kjt is saying NO trash talk occurred. I think kjt's point was, the "Turn down the music. F you - don't listen to him - I'll kill you, let's kill this MF er, you talking to me yeah I m talkin to you" exchange as described by MD could not have happened in the time between RR entering the store and the gunfire erupting. And I agree, the time for all that MD claims occurred was pretty limited.

As to the pros not emphasizing the relationship or lack thereof of MD and his adult son, I don't know that that would have changed anything and probably would have further muddied the waters.

I agree with karmady in that to focus on the likely intoxication level of MD at the time of the crime could have backfired.

 

[writer7]

I agree that the assumption in much of the media (and on Twitter) seems to be that the jury must have hung on self defense.

I do think many of us consider it unlikely that one or two holdouts for M1 could not have been convinced to side with a majority voting for M2 -- and not put the grieving victim's family through the agony of another trial.

But all you have to do is peruse twitter to find comments like, "I would never ever agree to 2nd degree murder, even if it meant a mistrial."

There are some pretty hardliners out there. Not that this is necessarily a bad thing -- or not understandable given what a detestable human being Michael Dunn has shown himself to be.

I think I speak for many of us when I express the feeling that I hope the reason for the deadlock on the top count leaks to the media in the next few days.

I understand someone holding fast for M1, too (although I wouldn't do it), but current reaction from the public shows a very bad unintended consequence of that. Many folks are saying that the decision was injustice, particularly in letting a white man kill another black youth and get 'let off'.

Can you imagine if it's as we wonder and it was really hung because of holdouts for M1? That's so far from letting this man off that it's very sad that a big public reaction is to act as if the result is the same as the Zimmerman trial.

It makes me sad. This could be great progress, even though the jury was hung. We all have to wait and see whether anyone even bought the self-defense story, not assume that they must have.

I am afraid that someone did, though. I wouldn't be surprised considering the number of racists out there and the number of jurors who don't understand the 'reasonable' part of reasonable doubt. Casey Anthony comes to mind on that and race between killer and victim was zero issue there.

 

[writer7]

Is the prosecution allowed to explain how self-defense is an affirmative defense? That would help a lot in the next trial, I think. Basically, Dunn does have to prove his innocence with that defense, and that's huge.

 

[Zuri]

I agree that the assumption in much of the media (and on Twitter) seems to be that the jury must have hung on self defense.

I do think many of us consider it unlikely that one or two holdouts for M1 could not have been convinced to side with a majority voting for M2 -- and not put the grieving victim's family through the agony of another trial.

But all you have to do is peruse twitter to find comments like, "I would never ever agree to 2nd degree murder, even if it meant a mistrial."

There are some pretty hardliners out there. Not that this is necessarily a bad thing -- or not understandable given what a detestable human being Michael Dunn has shown himself to be.

I think I speak for many of us when I express the feeling that I hope the reason for the deadlock on the top count leaks to the media in the next few days.

:goodpost:
I agree with you in that somebody on the jury may have thought MD was NG and he acted in self defense and for them it was not a clear cut case of murder. IMO these jurors have MD overload and need to decompress. I hope the ones inclined to vote guilty, speak with the SAO before too much time passes and the deliberations are fresh in their minds. JMV

 

[momrids6]

(Note, this assumes the first 12 are primary jurors, and the last 4 alternates. We are awaiting confirmation. Based on that clarification and those assumptions, the jury appears to be comprised of 5 men (one of whom appears Hispanic) and 7 women (2 African Americans, and one Asian American).

http://www.firstcoastnews.com/story...2014/02/12/jurors-michael-dunn-trial/5422539/

 

[CarolinaMoon]

I would expect that the jurors are totally exhausted after so many hours of deliberation. I would hope they would decompress a while and spend time with their loved ones after the sequestration.

I'm feeling pretty sure that they all discussed when and to whom to talk since their decision not to speak after the trial was unanimous.

Also, I would hope they all had some time to do some research on the case and get some new information that the public at large had so they have an idea of what kind of reaction they would receive.

 

[fifteen89]

I would love to hear from fore person...in the Arias penalty phase where they could not reach a verdict that foreman was awful...you could tell he had a big agenda and should not have had that job.

In this case I doubt if it was more than one person maybe even a split on m1/m2 but I think most would have been okay with m2...if would have caved in lieu of not having resolution. M2 would have held him accountable for the murder...it is possible that some thought m2 would have him on the street sometime in the future and just could not do it. Jury not knowing penalties etc. I suppose is good...they have enough to consider and should just consider the evidence but sometimes it might help get a verdict vs hung.

As for Guy I like him but maybe they did not...again Corey can talk to them and ask straight up who did you like and not like...very helpful..hope they talk to her.

BBM
I really like Mr. Guy too. I get what they're saying when people say cross should be short yes and no answers from the defendant, but I thought it showed extremely well how self-serving, ridiculous and unbelievable Dunn's testimony was by how Guy allowed him to ramble. For me it helped the prosecution not the defense. jmt

 

[Soliloquy]

(Note, this assumes the first 12 are primary jurors, and the last 4 alternates. We are awaiting confirmation. Based on that clarification and those assumptions, the jury appears to be comprised of 5 men (one of whom appears Hispanic) and 7 women (2 African Americans, and one Asian American).

http://www.firstcoastnews.com/story...2014/02/12/jurors-michael-dunn-trial/5422539/

It is confirmed (we heard it live) that the first 12 were the primary jurors and the last 4 were the alternates. Juror #7 was the foreperson.

 

[LambChop]

BBM
I really like Mr. Guy too. I get what they're saying when people say cross should be short yes and no answers from the defendant, but I thought it showed extremely well how self-serving, ridiculous and unbelievable Dunn's testimony was by how Guy allowed him to ramble. For me it helped the prosecution not the defense. jmt

I don't know because I thought MD was being incredibly arrogant with Guy during some of the questioning. He did better with defense. Usually when you tell the truth you don't have to be flip. Doing so raises the "hinky meter" on the back of people's necks. No matter what they do self-defense is a hot button for some and especially in Florida. MD will never get why he is in prison. To MD, JD was just a . jmo

 

[gxm]

When police officers discharge their weapons, they are required to file a report, and there is an investigation. I think CHL holders should also have to file a report, within two hours of the discharge of the weapon. I'm sure that would never fly in Florida, but there is no reason for Joe Blow to be held to a lesser standard than law enforcement.

THIS! x eleventy

 

[Jax49]

I don't know because I thought MD was being incredibly arrogant with Guy during some of the questioning. He did better with defense. Usually when you tell the truth you don't have to be flip. Doing so raises the "hinky meter" on the back of people's necks. No matter what they do self-defense is a hot button for some and especially in Florida. MD will never get why he is in prison. To MD, JD was just a . jmo

Totally agree.

My problem with Guy was his closing seemed disjointed. Several times it seemed to me he started in the middle of a sentence. Does that make sense?

 

[fifteen89]

I don't know because I thought MD was being incredibly arrogant with Guy during some of the questioning. He did better with defense. Usually when you tell the truth you don't have to be flip. Doing so raises the "hinky meter" on the back of people's necks. No matter what they do self-defense is a hot button for some and especially in Florida. MD will never get why he is in prison. To MD, JD was just a . jmo

Exactly! If he'd been cut off and kept to short yes/no answers, we wouldn't have seen his true personality slipping out with the "you weren't there" comment or "it would be nice if you'd show that" or when he told the jury "you'll be able to see that" crap. To me, Dunn lost his own case. jmt

 

[Spellbound]

(Note, this assumes the first 12 are primary jurors, and the last 4 alternates. We are awaiting confirmation. Based on that clarification and those assumptions, the jury appears to be comprised of 5 men (one of whom appears Hispanic) and 7 women (2 African Americans, and one Asian American).

http://www.firstcoastnews.com/story...2014/02/12/jurors-michael-dunn-trial/5422539/

I am surprised how many jurors do not have children. Could that have made a big difference in how the boys actions were perceived, compared to a grown man's testimony? Grasping at straws to understand how the one charge could not be settled.

 

[Karmady]

(Note, this assumes the first 12 are primary jurors, and the last 4 alternates. We are awaiting confirmation. Based on that clarification and those assumptions, the jury appears to be comprised of 5 men (one of whom appears Hispanic) and 7 women (2 African Americans, and one Asian American).

http://www.firstcoastnews.com/story...2014/02/12/jurors-michael-dunn-trial/5422539/

Based on this chart, it looks like none of the white males who have children were asked their gender, while everyone else with children, including the "white hispanic," was. Weird. jmo