Loud Music Murder Trial

[twa]

You'd have to be pretty stupid to fall for that one. It's sort of like how they taught us in basic training that it's against the Geneva Convention to shoot at troops with large caliber weapons but shooting at equipment like uniforms and boots is OK.

 

well I don't think it really matters under Florida law, they focus on what your inexcusable action caused(a death), the only real qualifier is if the gun accidentally discharged ect.

 

he certainly intended to shoot....someone died....if inexcusable by self defense  it is manslaughter at a minimum.(with the added by firearm penalty)

 

Larry some places would class that as involuntary manslaughter/negligent homicide

[sacase]

What I was saying was that 3 minutes was certainly long enough to dispose of a weapon and return a short ways back to the Gate. And it's a little shady that no one called 911 until they arrived back at the Gate. You would think they would have called 911 immediately.

And part of me saying "shady" earlier was because the area they fled to was never searched.

Again, I don't think they had a gun. I was just saying that the defense attorney did a great job of creating doubt in closing arguments.

 

nothing shady at all people handle stress differently, especially teenagers. About 8 years ago I was at a party, most of us there were all combat Vets. one of the guys brought his GF who was a normal  civilian. Long story short, the person whose house it was had a Rot, it ended up biting a coworker on the face causing a lot of damage. All of us military folks just reacted to the situation calming, got her outside, providing first aid, called the ambulance. Then Those of us who were not physically treating her started to clean up the house and the blood. Party was over. Again, people just slipped into roles as we were all used to the stress of that type of situation. The civilian girl was flipping out the whole time and lost it. Then she started accusing people of covering things up, crying, laying in the grass, you name it. My buddy dumped her a week later. but she couldn't handle the stress of that kind of situation. I don't expect teenagers to handle the stress of their friend getting shot like I would a car full of combat vets or even adults.

[NoCalMike]

CNN had a scroll at the bottom saying the Jury requested to see the letters the guy wrote from Jail. I am not sure why those matter since it was after the fact, unless they are trying to get an idea of his psyche and possible opinions on minorities? 

[Bubble Screen]

CNN had a scroll at the bottom saying the Jury requested to see the letters the guy wrote from Jail. I am not sure why those matter since it was after the fact, unless they are trying to get an idea of his psyche and possible opinions on minorities?

They requested the letter from June because some things he wrote don't coincide with the testimony he gave on the stand.

[twa]

still no verdict but from this they are simply deciding how long a rope to use for the drop.


http://legalinsurrection.com/
6:50 Jury requests to be dismissed for the night, saying they have “hit a wall for tonight.” Judge allows, no objection. He thanks jury, says he’ll let THEM decide what time to start tomorrow. Healey suggests, 9:00, 9:30, and one juror responds, “7:00″. The court room breaks into laughter. Healey decides jury can arrive when they wish, he’ll be there but rest of court need not, at 9:00AM he’ll call court into session and announce what time the jury actually started, just so everyone knows. That’s it for tonight, folks.

UPDATE (2-14): 6:40PM Several of Dunn’s jail house phone recordings–the cause of so much pre-trial litigation over “open records” disputes with the media–have just been released. These include:

12/3/12, w/ Rhonda Rouer:

12/3/12: Dunn’s call with father about legal options

12/5/12: Dunn’s calls with fiancee & his parents

12/26-27/12: Michael Dunn calls to Rhonda Rouer

UPDATE (2-14): 5:00PM Two questions from the jury. First question involves getting a 30 minute break, Healey of course says yes. Second question more substantive: Is it permissible for them to agree on several of the charges, but not on other of the charges. Answer is also yes. Verdicts would be rendered on the ones where unanimous agreement, the others would be hung, and State could re-prosecute on any hung charges at their discretion. (As a reminder, there are five indicted charges–Murder 1, three counts of attempted Murder 1, and hurling missiles. Also the jury is free to consider all lesser included charges.)

[NoCalMike]

I really hope that the deliberations are dragging on this long due to technicalities on which charges they should find him guilty of, and it isn't a situation where "scary black guys are to be perceived as a threat always so he was justified" has got one or more jurors wanting to let the guy walk.

[Bubble Screen]

I really hope that the deliberations are dragging on this long due to technicalities on which charges they should find him guilty of, and it isn't a situation where "scary black guys are to be perceived as a threat always so he was justified" has got one or more jurors wanting to let the guy walk.

If you read the story at HLN, that's what is happening. He's going to be found guilty. Just unsure which charge(s).

Really wish people would stop comparing this to the Martin case though. The evidence wasn't there to convict Zimmerman.

[skinsmarydu]

I am concerned that jury deliberations might be going the same way as the Zimmerman case, tho...one juror wearing the others down, and being sequestered, everyone just wants to go home, so they cave.  Either way the verdict goes, I want to believe in the integrity of the system...another "Juror B-29" story wouldn't be good.

[Bubble Screen]

Based on the latest jury questions, it appears that they bought Dunn's self defense story vs Davis. However, it looks like he will be charged with firing at the others in the vehicle as it was fleeing. That's 3 counts at 20 years a pop. That's basically a life sentence.

[Larry]

So, you're suggesting that he's going to be convicted of not making sure he had a clear field of fire?

That seems really lame, to me. (And a really harsh sentence for such a lame charge.)

[TheGoodBits]

Based on the latest jury questions, it appears that they bought Dunn's self defense story vs Davis. However, it looks like he will be charged with firing at the others in the vehicle as it was fleeing. That's 3 counts at 20 years a pop. That's basically a life sentence.

Wow...note to self, if you ever want to kill someone, do it in Florida.

"Look out Ned, he's coming right at us!"

[Bubble Screen]

Not sure I'm following you guys. What difference does it make if he isn't charged with killing Davis? He's still, in essence, getting the same sentence. He's 46 or 47. He will never see the light of day.

He was never getting convicted of first degree murder. That was an overcharge, in most people's eyes.

[TheGoodBits]

Not sure I'm following you guys. What difference does it make if he isn't charged with killing Davis? He's still, in essence, getting the same sentence. He's 46 or 47. He will never see the light of day.

He was never getting convicted of first degree for murdering Davis. That was an overcharge, in most people's eyes.

Seems to me that if a jury decides he acted in self defense, that would be a good first step for him toward getting any other conviction overturned, or at least a reduced sentence.

But reading twa's post, seems more likely they convict on the lesser charges and let another jury later figure out the murder thing.

[Bubble Screen]

Seems to me that if a jury decides he acted in self defense, that would be a good first step for him toward getting any other conviction overturned, or at least a reduced sentence.

But reading twa's post, seems more likely they convict on the lesser charges and let another jury later figure out the murder thing.

I don't think he can get the lesser charges reduced. The way I understand FL laws, if you are charged with firing your gun at someone, it's an automatic 20 year sentence.

As far as murder 1 against Davis: yes, the prosecution can choose to retry that part of the case with another jury. But, why bother? He would already be serving 60 years.

Edit: and even if he could get the lessers reduced, he's still looking at 9-20 years for each count. And the judge won't give him the low end year. So you figure, at best, he's looking at 15 x 3=45 years. He's toast.

[TheGoodBits]

I don't think he can get the lesser charges reduced. The way I understand FL laws, if you are charged with firing your gun at someone, it's an automatic 20 year sentence.

As far as murder 1 against Davis: yes, the prosecution can choose to retry that part of the case with another jury. But, why bother? He would already be serving 60 years.

Guessing it probably matters some to the family of the victim.

[Bubble Screen]

Guessing it probably matters some to the family of the victim.

Oh, I'm sure it matters. Just saying, I doubt they would want to subject themselves to another trial when there's no guarantee the next jury would convict him of murder 1 either.

Like I said, he's still looking at a life sentence, anyway.

[TheGoodBits]

Oh, I'm sure it matters. Just saying, I doubt they would want to subject themselves to another trial when there's no guarantee the next jury would convict him of murder 1 either.

Like I said, he's still looking at a life sentence, anyway.

Agree to disagree I guess. But glad the dude looks like he's getting locked up regardless.

[Duckus]

Not sure I'm following you guys. What difference does it make if he isn't charged with killing Davis? He's still, in essence, getting the same sentence. He's 46 or 47. He will never see the light of day.

It makes an enormous amount of difference.

[Bubble Screen]

It makes an enormous amount of difference.

It makes no difference, as far as the time Dunn would serve.

It's not like the Arias case, which was a death penalty case. She didn't get death in the first trial. So I can understand the victim's family wanting to have another trial.

[twa]

I don't think they are buying self defense at all .....but neither are they buying premeditation or malice

 

since he is being tried for murder1(and ALL lesser included charges) and attempted murder against the survivors it complicates matters greatly for the jury.

 

 

place ya bets 

[Bubble Screen]

I don't think they are buying self defense at all .....but neither are they buying premeditation or malice

since he is being tried for murder1(and ALL lesser included charges) and attempted murder against the survivors it complicates matters greatly for the jury.

place ya bets

It appears they may have bought self defense vs Davis, but not the other 3.

[LadySkinsFan]

It's only a considered life sentence if he is sentenced to serve consecutively (sentences run back to back).  If concurrent (sentences stacked to be served all at the same time) then it certainly isn't a "life" sentence.

 

My guess: Murder 2, and the rest guilty of attempted murder.

 

Interesting definitions of the different types of murder/manslaughter etc.

 

http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2014/02/michael-dunns-charges-what-jurors-are-debating.html

[Bubble Screen]

It's only a considered life sentence if he is sentenced to serve consecutively (sentences run back to back). If concurrent (sentences stacked to be served all at the same time) then it certainly isn't a "life" sentence.

My guess: Murder 2, and the rest guilty of attempted murder.

Interesting definitions of the different types of murder/manslaughter etc.

http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2014/02/michael-dunns-charges-what-jurors-are-debating.html

By "life sentence", I was saying that, looking at Dunn's age, if he were to get 45-60 years, then that is in essence a life sentence.

I, too, think he will (or should) get Murder 2, and guilty of attempted murder of the 3 teens. However, ANY conviction he gets is going to put him away for a LONG time.

[twa]

It appears they may have bought self defense vs Davis, but not the other 3.

 

for that I would say they would have to believe Davis was armed, and if armed the others are excusable because of a primary threat.

[Larry]

I don't think they are buying self defense at all .....but neither are they buying premeditation or malice

I agree with you. (Is today Feb 29th?)

I'm not seeing self defense. (But then, that's because I don't think "well, he might have had a gun" is good enough for self defense.)

And I'm not buying premeditation.