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

[ElleElle]

During the question period last night, a reporter asked Angela Corey why she would retry the murder count considering the lengthy sentence MD faces for the other 4 counts. She said that it was important to retry the murder count in case the other counts are appealed and thrown out.

Good! ITA. There should be a retrial.

 

[Leilei]

During the question period last night, a reporter asked Angela Corey why she would retry the murder count considering the lengthy sentence MD faces for the other 4 counts. She said that it was important to retry the murder count in case the other counts are appealed and thrown out.

He can appeal, but I really doubt that the convictions get thrown out. Reading Strolla's comments from last night regarding what they might try to appeal on, well, I just don't see any of it working in MD's favor.

Question: We know sentencing is late next month. Will MD be able to bring people in to testify as to why he shouldn't be sentenced to the max? Or is that only in death penalty cases?

 

[Leilei]

Does it work that way? I mean, since they couldn't agree on M1, can they default to M2?

And, yes I would of the same if so. Maybe they were thinking he's be sentenced anyways, that the M1 is overkill. No pun intended. :giggle:

Yes, ma'am. They can start with M1, and work their way down, as they had the option to convict on the lesser degrees for that count. I think that some folks got stuck on different degrees and would not budge. They all have to agree - and that's hard to do, especially when some folks still believe that "premeditation" has to involve hours of planning and lying in wait. IMO, though!

 

[ElleElle]

Yes, ma'am. They can start with M1, and work their way down, as they had the option to convict on the lesser degrees for that count. I think that some folks got stuck on different degrees and would not budge. They all have to agree - and that's hard to do, especially when some folks still believe that "premeditation" has to involve hours of planning and lying in wait. IMO, though!

Can anyone point me to the jury selection for this trial? TIA

 

[Bernina]

I apologize for my ignorance, but I live where guns are usually associated with gangs etc.

I do not understand the mentality of carrying a gun because, honestly I was not raised in an environment where guns are legal to carry.

I am not trying to be ignorant.

You nailed it, ElleElle. In some places, guns are common place, not as a "self defense", but "in defense" of "environmental factors". "Open Carry" laws have been around in my state, Arizona, since before Arizona became a state.

Now take in consideration that Arizona has only been a State for a little over 100 years. We have many dangerous and deadly predators, ie. animals, and venomous reptiles. The state was founded on the industries of Cotton, Cattle, Copper, and Citrus, all of which put the participants in situations where they could and usually did encounter those environmental dangers. Hunting decided whether you survived.
Add to that, the Comancheros, Indians, and bandits that were still a part of the State's history the first few decades of the 1900's. Prior to that, the Mexican-American War was going on. Arizona wasn't even in existence when the Civil War was going on. Slavery wasn't even an issue and many settlers moved here just to get away from it.

I'm used to seeing holstered weapons and "long guns"in racks on the back windows of trucks. It was common place in Scottsdale where I grew up, and up here where I've lived for the past 24 years.

Native Arizonans don't see weapons as "living in fear", they see it as a "tool for safety". Don't get me wrong, there are many non-Arizonans who move here and go all "Yosemite Sam" with the legalities of guns. They usually run afoul of the Law at one point or another because they don't have a handle on gun ownership.

Guns were allowed in the County Courthouse in Yavapai County (my county) until just 15 years ago, and that only happened because some silly 16 year old decided she was going to help her boyfriend escape during his court trial.:facepalm:

Some societies can handle possessing weapons, and a lot of it has to do with the culture and respect that THAT society places on them. Other societies place "status" on the ownership of a weapon<- that's where things go bad.
JMO.

 

[outofstatelawyer]

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.

 

[Zuri]

I did not realize that pre- meditation actually could be seconds, time to reflect. Juan Martinez explained it to the jury so well in the Arias trial that I actually understood it. Murder 1 was the correct charge IMO. If they could not agree on M1, then go down the list. If there is reasonable doubt, acquit.

I cannot speculate as to where the jury got hung up as they could have been all over the place. The fact that they could not agree, to me, implies that some thought JD provoked or was in some way responsible for his own death. In truth, had JD not engaged with Dunn in a war of words, this shooting more than likely, would have never happened.

There is a lesson here. Think before you act, whether verbal or physical. This applies to people like Dunn as well kids like Jordan. I try to tell my children, who are young adults, to not engage with drivers that cut them off, drive slowly in the left lane, don't use turn signals, flip them off, tailgate them etc. Yes it is annoying, but you never know who the inconsiderate driver is or if they have a gun. Disengage.

 

[Leilei]

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.

Wholeheartedly agree with you. That would have helped tremendously in this particular case.

 

[katiecoolady]

Hi everyone! :seeya:

Now I just really got in to this trial toward the very end but have been playing a bit of catchup on youtube etc.

I just want to say something about why it is absolutely necessary that they retry him on the M1 charge.

I'll just use an anecdotal from our own case to illustrate my opinion.

My sister's killers were both convicted of murder 1 and conspiracy to commit murder. The prior garnering a Death sentence and the latter Life WITH parole which I'm sure seemed redundant to some.

About 18 years after their convictions/sentences we were drug through a lengthy "mental retardation" trial and one of them was released from death row with a reversal on that sentence and a resentencing. Now since at the time they were sentenced, AZ did not have a Life WITHOUT parole option, he was grandfathered in from his prior sentence. Had he not also had the conspiracy conviction (even though it may have seemed gratuitous at the time as obviously on death row he'd be in prison for life), he would have gone straight from Death Row to life WITH parole and up for parole in 5 years. Imagine that, getting off death row for that level of crime and being considered for RELEASE 5 years later.

Thankfully he had that other conviction and the Judge (surprisingly as she was biased toward the KILLER and was the one who released him from DR) ruled the new sentences consecutive vs. concurrent and he will still remain in prison for life. He will complete his new 25 to Life sentence, be denied parole then go in to his next 25 year sentence.

If Dunn gets any of his current convictions and whatever sentences overturned on some technicality or for any reason down the road, they need backup (which really is kind of backward in this case).

Sentences can get overturned and they need to make every single possible assurance that he will be held in prison for life for this heinous crime even if, right now, it seems like a "waste of taxpayer dollars". It's not for a crime of this magnitude, trust me.

And with all that being said, the family and loved ones of Jordan Davis deserve justice for HIM. And I stand by them 1000% in solidarity for seeing this all the way through whatever it takes.

 

[LambChop]

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 is why you will never see Joe filing a report with LE in Florida:

I think it is 20 years min./30 max.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes...ing=&URL=0700-0799/0790/Sections/0790.15.html

 

[Zuri]

OT: KATIECOOLADY!!!!! So nice to see you here posting with us!!!

:seeya: :loveyou::welcomeback:

 

[katiecoolady]

I did not realize that pre- meditation actually could be seconds, time to reflect. Juan Martinez explained it to the jury so well that I actually understood it. Murder 1 was the correct charge IMO. If they could not agree on M1, then go down the list. If there is reasonable doubt, acquit.

I cannot speculate as to where the jury got hung up as they could have been all over the place. The fact that they could not agree, to me, implies that some thought JD provoked or was in some way responsible for his own death. In truth, had JD not engaged with Dunn in a war of words, this shooting more than likely, would have never happened.

There is a lesson here. Think before you act, whether verbal or physical. This applies to people like Dunn as well kids like Jordan. I try to tell my children, who are young adults, to not engage with drivers that cut them off, drive slowly in the left lane, don't use turn signals, flip them off, tailgate them etc. Yes it is annoying, but you never know who the inconsiderate driver is or if they have a gun. Disengage.

I find your analogy in keeping with exactly what I can't stop comparing this case to: basically an episode of road rage.

 

[Martha Morris]

Hi Katiecoolady,

How lovely to see you posting on this thread. I used to read your posts every day.

Best wishes from sunny (which makes a change lol) England!

 

[Mare10]

Please continue to support the Davis family. Thank you!

 

[Karmady]

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.

~bbm

Other than the fact that the officer is a state actor? I was thinking about that very issue in this case when the statements of the police officer to Dunn about how he wasn't allowed to discharge his firearm except under certain conditions were being discussed. That's the reason for that difference as well, imo.

jmo

 

[katiecoolady]

Hi Katiecoolady,

How lovely to see you posting on this thread. I used to read your posts every day.

Best wishes from sunny (which makes a change lol) England!

Chip chip Cheerio across the pond! :seeya: I'll watch my Downton Abbey tonite in your honor!

 

[tlcya]

To prove the crime of First Degree Premeditated Murder, the State must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. (Victim) is dead.

2. The death was caused by the criminal act of (defendant).

3. There was a premeditated killing of (victim).

Definitions.
An “act” includes a series of related actions arising from and performed pursuant to a single design or purpose.

“Killing with premeditation” is killing after consciously deciding to do so. The decision must be present in the mind at the time of the killing. The law does not fix the exact period of time that must pass between the formation of the premeditated intent to kill and the killing. The period of time must be long enough to allow reflection by the defendant. The premeditated intent to kill must be formed before the killing.

The question of premeditation is a question of fact to be determined by you from the evidence. It will be sufficient proof of premeditation if the circumstances of the killing and the conduct of the accused convince you beyond a reasonable doubt of the existence of premeditation at the time of the killing.

Transferred intent. Give if applicable.
If a person has a premeditated design to kill one person and in attempting to kill that person actually kills another person, the killing is premeditated.
Lesser Included Offenses

Lesser Included Offenses

FIRST DEGREE (PREMEDITATED) MURDER -- 782.04(1)(a)
CATEGORY ONE CATEGORY TWO FLA. STAT. INS. NO.
Second degree (depraved mind) murder 782.04(2) 7.4
Manslaughter 782.07 7.7
Second degree (felony) murder 782.04(3) 7.5
Third degree (felony) murder 782.04(4) 7.6
Vehicular homicide 782.071 7.9
Aggravated assault 784.021 8.2
Aggravated battery 784.045 8.4
Assault 784.011 8.1
Battery 784.03 8.3
Felony battery 784.041 8.5
Culpable negligence 784.05(2) 8.9
Culpable negligence 784.05(1) 8.9
Attempted second degree murder 782.04(2) & 777.04 6.4
Attempted voluntary manslaughter 782.07 & 777.04 6.6

Comment
This instruction was adopted in 1981 and was amended in October 1981, and July 1997, and 2008.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...apter7/p2c7s7.2.rtf+&cd=8&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

I truly do think the jury was hung up on how they could find on 2nd degree attempted murder when they had not been able to agree on the M1 charge for Jordan's killing.

The the 2nd degree attempted murder charge appears to tied to the murder charge and could be very confusing for a jury, hell its confusing to me ad I have been trial watching for some time now.

the BBBM statute is the 2nd degree attempted murder one.

it refers to the following statutes as the qualifiers which are the statutes which explain how crimes are considered murder and attempt under the law:

782.04 (2)&#8195;The unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual, is murder in the second degree and constitutes a felony of the first degree, punishable by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life or as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...ing=&URL=0700-0799/0782/Sections/0782.04.html

and

777.04&#8195;Attempts, solicitation, and conspiracy.—
(1)&#8195;A person who attempts to commit an offense prohibited by law and in such attempt does any act toward the commission of such offense, but fails in the perpetration or is intercepted or prevented in the execution thereof, commits the offense of criminal attempt, ranked for purposes of sentencing as provided in subsection (4). Criminal attempt includes the act of an adult who, with intent to commit an offense prohibited by law, allures, seduces, coaxes, or induces a child under the age of 12 to engage in an offense prohibited by law.
(2)&#8195;A person who solicits another to commit an offense prohibited by law and in the course of such solicitation commands, encourages, hires, or requests another person to engage in specific conduct which would constitute such offense or an attempt to commit such offense commits the offense of criminal solicitation, ranked for purposes of sentencing as provided in subsection (4).
(3)&#8195;A person who agrees, conspires, combines, or confederates with another person or persons to commit any offense commits the offense of criminal conspiracy, ranked for purposes of sentencing as provided in subsection (4).

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...tute&URL=0700-0799/0777/Sections/0777.04.html

I truly think they could not agree on Murder for Jordan and I think they felt the attempted murder charges might be tied to that act and therefore might not apply if the murder of Jordan was not factored into their deliberations.

I think one hold out juror was questioning if MD acted in self defense or was guilty of a lesser crime such as manslaughter but not ready to believe they could apply murder - they did not feel the premeditation was there for that act. And if they felt he acted in self defense or was more rightly guilty of manslaughter could they find him guilty of attempted murder for the other occupants of the vehicle?

what they finally came to understand and the reason for the guilty verdict as to counts 2-4 is

6.4 ATTEMPTED SECOND DEGREE MURDER

§§ 782.04(2) and 777.04, Fla.Stat.

To prove the crime of Attempted Second Degree Murder, the State must prove the following two elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
(Defendant) intentionally committed an act which would have resulted in the death of (victim) except that someone prevented (defendant) from killing (victim) or [he] [she] failed to do so.

The act was imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind without regard for human life.

Definitions

An "act" includes a series of related actions arising from and performed pursuant to a single design or purpose.
An act is "imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind" if it is an act or series of acts that:
1. a person of ordinary judgment would know is reasonably certain to kill or do serious bodily injury to another, and

2. is done from ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent, and
3. is of such a nature that the act itself indicates an indifference to human life.

In order to convict of Attempted Second Degree Murder, it is not necessary for the State to prove the defendant had an intent to cause death.
It is not an attempt to commit second degree murder if the defendant abandoned the attempt to commit the offense or otherwise prevented its commission under circumstances indicating a complete and voluntary renunciation of [his] [her] criminal purpose.

Lesser Included Offenses

ATTEMPTED SECOND DEGREE MURDER -- 782.04(2) and 777.04
CATEGORY ONE CATEGORY TWO FLA. STAT. INS. NO.
None
Aggravated assault 784.021 8.2
Aggravated battery 784.045 8.4
Assault 784.011 8.1
Battery 784.03 8.3
http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...apter6/p2c6s6.4.rtf+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

 

[turaj]

Does it work that way? I mean, since they couldn't agree on M1, can they default to M2?

And, yes I would of the same if so. Maybe they were thinking he's be sentenced anyways, that the M1 is overkill. No pun intended. :giggle:

That would be up to the jury foreperson ...if you see m1 will be a really tough sell you then move to m2 and see where they are on that and if that will cover everyone either m1 or m2 then you see which direction may likely get everyone etc. etc. Of course a hold out for 1 would eventually end it...as for the sentencing...jury knows nothing about that...so in my opinion i think they got the hold out to agree to the other counts 2-5 with that person maybe agreeing since they did not realize the extent of prison time that goes with each of those counts. That is sort of my take on it and if anywhere near true that juror will be suprised at what he is getting

 

[Isabelle]

Where will Dunn live out the rest of his life?

 

[Truth Detector]

There was discussion yesterday on the now-closed Verdict Watch thread on the version of the Allen Charge used by Florida courts.

I transcribed it as Judge Russell Healey read it to the jury.

Following is that text:

"I know that all of you have worked hard to try and reach a verdict in this case to each of the counts. It apparently has been impossible for you so far.

Sometimes an early vote before discussion can make it hard to reach an agreement about the case later. The vote -- not the discussion -- might make it hard to see all sides of the case.

We are all aware that it is legally permissible for a jury to disagree. There are two things a jury can lawfully do: agree on a verdict or disagree on what the facts of the case may truly be. There is nothing to disagree on about the law. The law is as I told you. If you have any disagreements about the law I should clear them up for you now. That should be my problem, not yours. If you disagree over what you believe the evidence showed, then only you can resolve that conflict if it is to be resolved.

I have only one request of you. By law I cannot demand this of you, but I want you to go back into the jury room. Then, taking turns, tell each of the other jurors about any weaknesses of your own position. You should not interrupt each other or comment on each other&#8217;s views until each of you has had a chance to talk. After you&#8217;ve done that, if you simply cannot reach a verdict, then return to the courtroom and I will declare this case mistried as to that count, and will discharge you with my sincere appreciation for your services."