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

[MeeBee]

Well I watched it and thought it was very enlightening. :seeya:

I know the thread has gotten a little OT, haha. But we are still discussing the Dunn case and would like to discuss the interview with you.

What did you find enlightening?

 

[MeeBee]

Suggestions for the prosecution:

Talk about race. Find a way to use the jailhouse letters and phone calls which show Dunn for the racist he is.

Do a better job presenting the forensics. Make it clearer to the jury where Jordan was when the shots were fired. Maybe do a crime scene recreation. If I were a juror I'd want to see the height of the vehicles compared. And, I'd want to get a better understanding of the angle Dunn fired from.

Put more emphasis on Jordan's last words "*advertiser censored** this, let's get out of here". (I hope I quoted that correctly.)

Worry less about appeal issues and more about getting a conviction.

IMHO, of course.

Any thoughts?

I agree. I think there is a danger to making the trial about race, but if it outlines Dunn's possible thought process that night then maybe they should.

I think the prosecution needs to do a better job of cross examining with facts. Often the crosses and re-directs amounted to not much more than "are you lying right now?" That's not enough, because of course anyone is going to say no. They've got to dig a little (how many times do I say that before it gets annoying :floorlaugh. I know there is more here. I do think it's important to talk about the angle and position of the bullets and the car and Dunn. That could very well have been a point of contention. The bullet trajectory to Jordan's door is certainly something that gave me pause. Hit on Dunn's lies and inconsistencies HARDER. Even in closings this should have been a huge point. Clear up the child lock thing, don't be afraid to ask those questions. Call in the boys and say "why do you say the child locks were on? What are child locks to you?" Get better lawyers. I thought it was a bad idea for Wolfson to point their witnesses' inconsistencies. Yes, there were some, but not enough to derail their case, and many probably could have been cleared up with a little DIGGING. All she did was highlight them and make them seem like she had to make excuses for them and it gave Strolla a chance to counter the argument. How about this, if Strolla is trying to say the boys all got together and coordinated their stories, why are the giving inconsistent accounts? Wouldn't they be more consistent, to the point of sounding rehearsed? Wouldn't they have made Jordan sound better, if that's the case? Shouldn't that show they are not lying and just being as truthful as they themselves can possibly be?

 

[Jax49]

I agree. I think there is a danger to making the trial about race, but if it outlines Dunn's possible thought process that night then maybe they should.

I think the prosecution needs to do a better job of cross examining with facts. Often the crosses and re-directs amounted to not much more than "are you lying right now?" That's not enough, because of course anyone is going to say no. They've got to dig a little (how many times do I say that before it gets annoying :floorlaugh. I know there is more here. I do think it's important to talk about the angle and position of the bullets and the car and Dunn. That could very well have been a point of contention. The bullet trajectory to Jordan's door is certainly something that gave me pause. Hit on Dunn's lies and inconsistencies HARDER. Even in closings this should have been a huge point. Clear up the child lock thing, don't be afraid to ask those questions. Call in the boys and say "why do you say the child locks were on? What are child locks to you?" Get better lawyers. I thought it was a bad idea for Wolfson to point their witnesses' inconsistencies. Yes, there were some, but not enough to derail their case, and many probably could have been cleared up with a little DIGGING. All she did was highlight them and make them seem like she had to make excuses for them and it gave Strolla a chance to counter the argument. How about this, if Strolla is trying to say the boys all got together and coordinated their stories, why are the giving inconsistent accounts? Shouldn't that show they are not lying and just being as truthful as they themselves can possibly be?

Excellent suggestions. IMO, they also need to put more focus on the requirement that the fear must be reasonable. You can't shoot someone just because you're paranoid.

 

[sdmike1974]

This is from my post #53 in the last thread. I think I hit the nail completely on the head;

I have a feeling that there is a juror or jurors with an agenda or severe stupidity.

I think a conversation like this is taking place;

A juror - "Let's see, he lied about calling the police, he lied about telling his girlfriend about his seeing a gun, he lied about being afraid they'd come back to the hotel for him, there's an independent witness who heard him scream 'YOU'RE NOT GOING TO SPEAK TO ME LIKE THAT' Just before shooting, he said he saw a long gun but one was never found, no witness, other than MD saw one, so why do you think he's not guilty?"

A different juror - "Well I don't think that people should have to actually see something if they're afraid of being killed. God forbid somebody dies because they were waiting to see the weapon before acting in self defense."

JMO

Similarly I think it sounds like three jurors said to themselves, "Yeah, I cannot convince myself that MD didn't think there was a shotgun pointed at him. So I vote for not guilty. Case closed."

They seemed to fail to consider this assumption within the context of the totality of all the contradictory evidence. I blame part of this on the weak cross examination by John Guy.

The rest I blame on confirmation bias by the three jurors who voted not guilty -- two of which apparently made up their minds in the first hour of deliberations -- or even before deliberations commenced.

What a terrible miscarriage of justice for Jordan's family.

 

[MeeBee]

Similarly I think it sound like three jurors said to themselves, "Yeah, I cannot convince myself that MD didn't think there was a shotgun pointed at him. So I vote for not guilty. Case closed."

They seemed to fail to consider this assumption within the context of the totality of all the contradictory evidence. I blame part of this on the weak cross examination by John Guy.

The rest I blame on confirmation bias by the three jurors who voted not guilty -- two of which apparently made up their minds in the first hour of deliberations -- or even before deliberations commenced.

What a terrible miscarriage of justice for Jordan's family.

I agree. I think, logically, saying, "we don't know that he doesn't think he saw a shotgun. We don't know that Jordan didn't get out of the vehicle. And hey, what if they did stash or ditch a gun? They could have." But you have to put that together with all the other evidence. As a juror you are allowed to use common sense too. You have to look at all of Dunn's actions (and inactions) before and after the murder, the fact he had several hours to make up a story, his lies and the stand. Would a man who thought he was in the right so what he did? Lie?

Similarly, sure, a case could be made that conceivable the boys stashed a gun. But, again, common sense. Why would they only drive a little bit away to stash a gun? Why would they drive back to the scene of the crime? Why wouldn't they shoot back if they had a gun? Why wouldn't they shoot first if they were ready to kill Dunn and had the gun out and ready? If they were gonna do that, wouldn't it make sense to drive off and throw the gun out in an undisclosed area as opposed to a stone's throw away? So many things don't make sense.

That was something that I was worried about with the Martin Macneill case. The evidence was pretty circumstantial. But the jury took into account what evidence there was in addition to Macneill's lies and his actions. A man wouldn't do and say the things he did if he weren't involved somehow in his wife's murder. I don't know why it's so hard for the Florida juries to think for themselves and use their god given common sense.

 

[Steely Dan]

I agree. I think, logically, saying, "we don't know that he doesn't think he saw a shotgun. We don't know that Jordan didn't get out of the vehicle. And hey, what if they did stash or ditch a gun? They could have." But you have to put that together with all the other evidence. As a juror you are allowed to use common sense too. You have to look at all of Dunn's actions (and inactions) before and after the murder, the fact he had several hours to make up a story, his lies and the stand. Would a man who thought he was in the right so what he did? Lie?

Similarly, sure, a case could be made that conceivable the boys stashed a gun. But, again, common sense. Why would they only drive a little bit away to stash a gun? Why would they drive back to the scene of the crime? Why wouldn't they shoot back if they had a gun? Why wouldn't they shoot first if they were ready to kill Dunn and had the gun out and ready? If they were gonna do that, wouldn't it make sense to drive off and throw the gun out in an undisclosed area as opposed to a stone's throw away? So many things don't make sense.

That was something that I was worried about with the Martin Macneill case. The evidence was pretty circumstantial. But the jury took into account what evidence there was in addition to Macneill's lies and his actions. A man wouldn't do and say the things he did if he weren't involved somehow in his wife's murder. I don't know why it's so hard for the Florida juries to think for themselves and use their god given common sense.

What really irritates me is that the defense blamed the cops for not looking for a gun. They didn't know they should be looking for one. Why? Because they had no idea they needed to. Why? Because the only person who claims they had one fled the scene. :banghead:

 

[YESorNO]

"One of the jurors in the Michael Dunn case spoke out on Nightline Tuesday night.

Juror #4 - Valerie, a home healthcare nurse, said the initial vote taken in the jury room was 10-2 for guilty on count 1.

Count 1 was the 1st degree murder charge of Jordan Davis.

They read the jury instructions and page 25 gave the definition of "justifiable use of deadly force".

Another vote was taken.

Second poll revealed 10 for guilty, 2 for self-defense and 2 undecided.

Valerie described screaming and yelling among the jurors. She also used the word "passionate" to describe the deliberations.

The final poll taken was 9-3 for guilty.

They unanimously agreed on the attempted murder charges against the other three teens in the SUV because Michael Dunn continued to shoot while they were driving away.

In the end, 3 jurors believed that Michael Dunn was justified in using deadly force against Jordan Davis as outlined in the jury instructions."

http://www.courtchatter.com/

BBM Unbelievable! :banghead:

 

[YESorNO]

Sentence him consecutively so he dies in prison, and save money by not re-trying him?

That's not justice for Jordan and Jordan's family. They need a verdict for Jordan and not just one for the other 3 children- who are still living (thank goodness).

Without the retrial, it's as if Jordan's murder didn't matter and the person who killed him is not responsible for that and is getting away with murder IMO.
People need to see what happens when a racist who drank too much, was angry about his own son, and took it out on innocent people by shooting and killing.

It's unacceptable, IMO, and money should never come up to determine if a retrial should/shouldn't be realized.

I can't wrap my head around how some people can't see the truth of all this. :banghead:

I'm angry (but I'm not running out to kill someone because of it).

People need to be held responsible for killing another (innocent) human being.

 

[CarolinaMoon]

I wonder if MD will testify again at his re-trial. I think he probably will due to his arrogance and the fact that he persuaded 2 then 3 jurors he was in fear for his life.

Corey & Co. need to ramp it up for the new, no-holds-barred trial. They need to hone their cross-examination skills and go for the jugular with Dunn. Refuse to let him ramble on by insisting he use only yes-no answers. Get him angry, get him annoyed. Let his true character come out on the stand in front of a new jury.

Spend a little money on a good cross-examination class for herself and the other prosecutors.

Don't let Dunn get away with saying things such as he had to let Rhonda go into the store alone because he couldn't get out of his car. Counter with the fact that if he couldn't get out, how could Jordan???

Dunn lied when he said the music started only after Rhonda got out of the car. Oh, and why would he let Rhonda go in alone with a bunch of "thugs" on the loose with one already in the store?

Don't bother with the Black Friday letter, it's his defense practice run. Bring in the statements he wrote in the other letters, including all those "" comments. Ask Dunn what he would consider to be a ! He claimed he never used the term; bring it out in your Case In Chief!

Add that to a lot of other suggestions here and win the case, darn it!

The fact that we and many in MSM feel the prosecution wimped out on their presentation needs to get through to the State Attorney's Office pronto!

 

[Jellyworker]

watched the interview this morning while preparing for work. i was completely disappointed. seemed like it was a 5 minute teaser piece. i expected the entire show to be devoted to this interview. i didn't get the answers i wanted, and he didn't ask the questions i wanted asked. hopefully another juror will step forward and give better answers to better questions.

 

[Softail]

Do we know if the prosecution even tried to get any of his letters in? :waitasec: I didn't watch any pre-trial stuff, but was wondering if they tried, but it was determined they were inadmissible? I'll try looking around later if nobody knows.

I just knew someone bought his BS story of self-defense. I'm surprised it was 3! :banghead:

 

[gxm]

Lol, I'd be like, "I know, right?"

I actually used to get discriminated against at work by other Mexicans because I was Mexican and didn't speak Spanish. It was like cultural limbo.

BBM

I feel you. I look ethnically ambiguous and spent my life answering the question "where are you from?" People start talking to me and I can't even pin down the language they're speaking. And I can't count the times people have brought me Spanish to proofread.

 

[CarolinaMoon]

Anderson Cooper discussion (with one commercial break).

http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/bestoftv/2014/02/19/ac-crump-stand-ground.cnn.html

 

[gxm]

Excellent suggestions. IMO, they also need to put more focus on the requirement that the fear must be reasonable. You can't shoot someone just because you're paranoid.

Agreed. Plus they need to drive home the fact that Dunn's actions were not fearful, his actions were confrontational, hostile, self-serving, and reckless. His testimony of being frightened does not jibe with the facts of the case such as leaving his gun in the car and taking the dog for a walk (unarmed) when he testified that he was worried the "gangsters" would return.

 

[Spellbound]

Sentence him consecutively so he dies in prison, and save money by not re-trying him?

From the few interviews I have seen with Jordan's parents, that would not be what they want. They want the murder conviction for Jordan. This is taken into consideration when deciding to retry.

Putting myself in their place, "my child's life is worth more than all the money in the world"

 

[Steely Dan]

I wonder if MD will testify again at his re-trial. I think he probably will due to his arrogance and the fact that he persuaded 2 then 3 jurors he was in fear for his life.

Corey & Co. need to ramp it up for the new, no-holds-barred trial. They need to hone their cross-examination skills and go for the jugular with Dunn. Refuse to let him ramble on by insisting he use only yes-no answers. Get him angry, get him annoyed. Let his true character come out on the stand in front of a new jury.

Spend a little money on a good cross-examination class for herself and the other prosecutors.

Don't let Dunn get away with saying things such as he had to let Rhonda go into the store alone because he couldn't get out of his car. Counter with the fact that if he couldn't get out, how could Jordan???

Dunn lied when he said the music started only after Rhonda got out of the car. Oh, and why would he let Rhonda go in alone with a bunch of "thugs" on the loose with one already in the store?

Don't bother with the Black Friday letter, it's his defense practice run. Bring in the statements he wrote in the other letters, including all those "" comments. Ask Dunn what he would consider to be a ! He claimed he never used the term; bring it out in your Case In Chief!

Add that to a lot of other suggestions here and win the case, darn it!

The fact that we and many in MSM feel the prosecution wimped out on their presentation needs to get through to the State Attorney's Office pronto!

If we all chipped in and paid for it, could you go to law school and finish before the next trial. You know more than the attorneys!

Agreed. Plus they need to drive home the fact that Dunn's actions were not fearful, his actions were confrontational, hostile, self-serving, and reckless. His testimony of being frightened does not jibe with the facts of the case such as leaving his gun in the car and taking the dog for a walk (unarmed) when he testified that he was worried the "gangsters" would return.

It appears they were of the "facts schmacks" idea.

Statistically - and I don't have a reference - as you do not - most people are killed by someone they know - or someone who moves in the same circles as them - or lives in the same areas. As people still mix more with "their own kind" it is obvious that most black murders are by black people (the same can be said of white deaths by murder). There is nothing the MSM has said that disputes this. The discussion is how the law and juries react to white on black crime.

^^^^^ That!

 

[turaj]

Not much to discuss, I gather -- from a post upthread

The juror pretty much said what I expected: that they couldn't decide between self defense and murder but agreed him continuing to shoot at a fleeing car "crossed the line."

Well..it was not a very exciting interview but what did surprise me was the first vote was 10-2 and ended in a dead lock at 9-3...3 people buying self defense. All the juror said was she thought he was guilty but I"m not even sure which side she was. Clearly when the judge mentioned the hearing things coming from the jury room it was them screaming and it got pretty hot in there. I found her statements to contribute even more to my frustration with the whole jury system but it will not change...I would have understood the verdict more had the problem been m1 vs m2 or even confusing jury instructions. Honestl....watching and speaking with this juror the prosecution if they retry they will have to really retool their case because three people thinking it was self defense...well that is a big loss.

 

[turaj]

From the few interviews I have seen with Jordan's parents, that would not be what they want. They want the murder conviction for Jordan. This is taken into consideration when deciding to retry.

Putting myself in their place, "my child's life is worth more than all the money in the world"

He is not my son but I feel that they HAVE to retry this case...technically had the others not been there he would have walked for the murder of jordan..can't let that stand...also it his crazy legal system if for any reason that verdict on the others got overturned etc. he would be free. Just have to retry.

 

[gxm]

Here are those murder statistics we discussed earlier, with link to source:

The relationship between the victim and the offender differed for female and male victims
- Female murder victims (41.5%) were almost 6 times more likely than male murder victims (7.1%) to have been killed by an intimate (table 6).
- More than half (56.4%) of male murder victims were killed by an acquaintance; another quarter (25.5%) were murdered by a stranger.

Page 10, Homicide Trends in the United States, 1980—2008

and

Most murders were intraracial

From 1980 through 2008—
- 84% of white victims were killed by whites (figure 19).
- 93% of black victims were killed by blacks.

Stranger homicides were more likely to cross racial lines than homicides involving friends or acquaintances
For homicides committed by—
- a stranger to the victim, 26.7% were interracial (figure 20a)
- a friend or acquaintance of the victim, 9.7% were interracial

Page 13, Homicide Trends in the United States, 1980—2008

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf

 

[turaj]

I was 1/2 asleep listing to juror 4...she mentioned page 25 of the juror instructions being read and discussed in depth and then the 10-2 went to 9-3. Did she say Strolla told them to go back and pay special attention to that page or was that just on their own. Somehow I thought she said that...not matter what I think my assessment of his closing as being very very good was shared by many of the jury??