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?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Well I watched it and thought it was very enlightening. :seeya:
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? Shouldn't that show they are not lying and just being as truthful as they themselves can possibly be?
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."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 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.
Sentence him consecutively so he dies in prison, and save money by not re-trying him?
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.
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.
Sentence him consecutively so he dies in prison, and save money by not re-trying him?
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!
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.
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.
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."
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"