GUILTY FL - Jordan Davis, 17, shot to death, Satellite Beach, 23 Nov 2012 #7

[outofstatelawyer]

The Allen charge he read from was approved by the Florida Supreme Court. How do other StaTes Allen Charges compare? I never have ever seen this. :seeya:

Yes, I stand corrected. You are correct. He read the Allen charge verbatim. I still think it's very wrong to tell jurors how to deliberate. I don't have the availability to research this, but I wonder if this has been challenged by people who have been convicted.

 

[popsicle]

Yes that's what the judge said basically; deadlocked on murder 1 and the lesser included charges (2nd and manslaughter).

Some clearly think JD was self defense some think it was murder of some degree.

No, I am saying they could all think he is guilty they just cannot agree on the level of murder.

 

[evelyn24]

I could not disagree with you more. Every legal gun owner is a responsible gun owner.... Right up until the point when they become irresponsible. I could list dozens and dozens of school shooters who purchased weapons legally. Someone like MD, who TRIED TO HIRE HIS NEIGHBOR TO MURDER SOMEONE (which WAS reported to the police), should NEVER be allowed to own a firearm!

Was MD ever convicted of hiring a neighbor to kill someone?

If not he is allowed to own a gun.

MOST legal gun owners are responsible and stats back this up, <modsnip> so we agree to disagree.
States with liberal gun laws have less gun violence, and places like Detroit and Chicago and DC where it is illegal to own have massive gun violence.

Gun control debate for another time.

Peace!

 

[popsicle]

Yes, I stand corrected. You are correct. He read the Allen charge verbatim. I still think it's very wrong to tell jurors how to deliberate. I don't have the availability to research this, but I wonder if this has been challenged by people who have been convicted.

AT the link it says it was adopted in 1981. If challenged it hasn't changed it imo

 

[Spellbound]

My opinion only, I think one or more fell for the self defense BS. That's why I think they are deadlocked on that count. I also think people don't understand premeditation. That is even true on this board. They don't understand that premeditation can be made in a split second. :twocents:

I do believe the premeditation is not understood by some on the jury. It has caused a lot of confusion in other trials, too---and needs to be made more understandable

 

[evelyn24]

No, I am saying they could all think he is guilty they just cannot agree on the level of murder.

ah okay.

but i would think a compromise would have been easy to reach then. I think a few believe self defense for JD across the board. we'll see.

 

[Boytwnmom]

I just can't believe they couldn't resolve that by now but I guess it's possible. I really hope so. If anyone is buying self defense there's a big problem. When reasonable behavior is no longer required all of society suffers. Nothing this guy did was reasonable, seriously, nothing. If killing becomes so easily accepted in some places in this country they are just no longer safe.

I don't understand why so many of you think the jury is debating only guilty vs not guilty on count 1. It's possible they ALL think he is guilty of murder, but just disagree as to the degree. 7 might think it was premeditated and 5 might think it was not. I think they all know he murdered Jordan Davis, but are unable to agree on the level of the murder. Does that make sense?

 

[trial addicted]

Who is don lemon and where are you guys watching this?

He's on CNN

 

[Nymeria]

UGH Zimmerman is going to be interviewed monday morn on CNN
:facepalm: Smart of them to advertise that NOW.

 

[evelyn24]

I do believe the premeditation is not understood by some on the jury. It has caused a lot of confusion in other trials, too---and needs to be made more understandable

Premeditation messes up a lot of jurors at times because it can be seconds, but a lot of people don't want to think of it that way.

 

[Linda7NJ]

UGH Zimmerman is going to be interviewed monday morn on CNN
:facepalm: Smart of them to advertise that NOW.

He won't be appearing on my television screen. I would rather poke my eye out!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Nymeria]

I don't understand why so many of you think the jury is debating only guilty vs not guilty on count 1. It's possible they ALL think he is guilty of murder, but just disagree as to the degree. 7 might think it was premeditated and 5 might think it was not. I think they all know he murdered Jordan Davis, but are unable to agree on the level of the murder. Does that make sense?

Good point Jaime. I hope you are right.

O/T- Is your user name from GoT?

 

[ShadyLady]

That's why I've said that maybe we should rethink how we seat juries. If a random sample of average citizens can't figure out the difference between what's reasonable and unreasonable, then something needs to change.

Professional juries? That's something I've thought about.

https://ibpublish2.ibsys.com/ib-bas...s-jax/-/475982/24225920/-/i4xbkm/-/index.html

Seems like a lot of pro-gun people? I don't know the average split nationwide. And I don't like guns, but think people have the right of self-defense.

 

[Spellbound]

Are you referring to Judge Healey's 'Allen Charge'?

[Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492 (1896)]

Where do you believe he overstepped that rather directive language?

Allen Charge in full:

"Members of the Jury:

I'm going to ask that you continue your deliberations in an effort to reach agreement upon a verdict and dispose of this case; and I would like for you to consider as you do so.

This is an important case. The trial has been expensive in time, effort, money and emotional strain to both the defense and the prosecution. If you should fail to agree upon a verdict, the case will be left open and may have to be tried again. Obviously, another trial would only serve to increase the cost to both sides, and there is no reason to believe that the case can be tried again by either side any better or more exhaustively than it has been tried before you.

Any future jury must be selected in the same manner and from the same source as you were chosen, and there is no reason to believe that the case could ever be submitted to twelve men and women more conscientious, more impartial, or more competent to decide it, or that more or clearer evidence could be produced.

If a substantial majority of your number are in favor of a conviction, those of you who disagree should reconsider whether your doubt is a reasonable one since it appears to make no effective impression upon the minds of the others. On the other hand, if a majority or even a lesser number of you are in favor of an acquittal, the rest of you should ask yourselves again, and most thoughtfully, whether you should accept the weight and sufficiency of evidence which fails to convince your fellow jurors beyond a reasonable doubt.

Remember at all times that no juror is expected to give up an honest belief he or she may have as to the weight or effect of the evidence; but, after full deliberation and consideration of the evidence in the case, it is your duty to agree upon a verdict if you can do so.

You must also remember that if the evidence in the case fails to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt the Defendant should have your unanimous verdict of Not Guilty.

You may be as leisurely in your deliberations as the occasion may require and should take all the time which you may feel is necessary.

I will ask now that you retire once again and continue your deliberations with these additional comments in mind to be applied, of course, in conjunction with all of the other instructions I have previously given to you."

But he also told them if they could not agree on a charge, then a mistrial would be declared for that one charge. If i recall correctly, I have always heard "chatter" that they were not allowed to tell a jury the consequences of a deadlock, hung jury, guilt or not guilty verdict.

JMO

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Good point Jaime. I hope you are right.

O/T- Is your user name from GoT?

I agree. Just like the Arias jury found her guilty of murder but some thought felony murder some premeditated murder.

I don't think it is not guilty. I think it is guilty, but what level of murder.. .

JMO

 

[RANCH]

My opinion only, I think one or more fell for the self defense BS. That's why I think they are deadlocked on that count. I also think people don't understand premeditation. That is even true on this board. They don't understand that premeditation can be made in a split second. :twocents:

The jury could have voted for manslaughter but they didn't. Florida statute 782.07(1).

The killing of a human being by the act, procurement, or culpable negligence of another, without lawful justification according to the provisions of chapter 776 and in cases in which such killing shall not be excusable homicide or murder, according to the provisions of this chapter, is manslaughter, a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

No need to understand premeditation to find someone guilty of manslaughter. MOO.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes...ing=&URL=0700-0799/0782/Sections/0782.07.html

 

[Irish_Eyes]

From where I sit this guy is way guilty but where I sit is not in Florida. We will see.

 

[Kensie]

What is going on? Went to get a sheltered dog and already have had to break up two dog fights.

 

[tlcya]

No, the Judge's job is to tell them to get back in and deliberate, that they know the facts better than anyone, that much time and expense has gone into this trial, and they need to continue to deliberate and get to a verdict. Telling them to go around the room, state your weakest point, etc. is absolutely not anywhere in the law. The judge made that one up himself. And I'm saying it's improper.

I believe you are mistaken.

The Allen charge embodied in Florida Standard Jury Instruction 3.06 provides:

I know that all of you have worked hard to try to find a verdict in this case. 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 about on the law. The law is as I told you. If you have any disagreements about the law, I should clear them 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 weakness of your own position. You should not interrupt each other or comment on each other’s views until each of you had a chance to talk. After you have done that, if you simply cannot reach a verdict, then return to the courtroom and I will declare this case mistried, and will discharge you with my sincere appreciation of your services.

You may now retire to continue with your deliberations.12

This deadlock instruction was first approved by the Florida Supreme Court in State v. Bryan, 290 So. 2d 482 (Fla. 1974). In Bryan, after learning that the jury was not close to reaching a verdict despite five and a half hours of deliberation, the trial court gave the jury a “balanced” Allen charge, “urging the minority jurors to carefully reconsider their position to see if they could conscientiously agree with that of the majority of the jury.”13 The Bryan court found the instruction given did not differ materially from the approved Standard Jury Instruction 2.19, the predecessor of the current 3.06 Allen charge.14

https://www.floridabar.org/divcom/jn/jnjournal01.nsf/Articles/21AC5A6D2909065085256ADB005D62F6

So what the Judge said to the jury was verbatim the instruction as approved by the FL Supreme Court. You may not approve but it was a legal and perfectly appropriate instruction according to the supreme court.

UBM: The judge did NOT pull that out of his hindquarters. Fact.

 

[Softail]

YIKES! WAT just went live. About jumped out of my skin! :lol: