Here are my thoughts about the State of Florida v. Michael Dunn case. Let me begin with a passage that I posted during the deliberation period over the past couple of days:
“There is absolutely no guarantee to an unbiased jury in American jurisprudence. Indeed, you cannot legislate the human condition, or legislate the human mind, nor can you legislate the soul of the human, or the spirit of the human being in a free society under this constitution. You can only hope and pray that the constitutional oath taken by the human beings sworn to uphold that oath as they occupy the jury box is honored by them, and hope and pray that the oath taken by those jurors and the act of those deliberations by that jury will be carried out with an unshakable value for justice and fairness for mankind. That is always what is at stake during the process called “jury deliberations” and that process of jury deliberation is, however, guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.” — Joseph Haynes Davis, Esq.
Now, as to the determination of the jury in the State of Florida v. Michael Dunn case is as set forth below:
Count 1: 1st degree murder—mistrial. However, there are media reports that the State of Florida will re-try this charge again. I will cite to those media reports as with the following as reported by CNN: “Given the partially hung jury, State Attorney Angela Corey said prosecutors would press for a new trial in Duval County on the murder charge.
“Justice for Jordan Davis is as important as it is for any victim,” said Corey, whose office also handled the Zimmerman case”, ACCORDING TO CNN. See the link right here for reference:http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/15/justice/florida-loud-music-trial/
Now, as to the lesser included offenses:
Counts 2,3,4,5 there were verdicts.
Count 2 – guilty of attempted 2nd degree murder, a lesser included offense. Defendant Dunn discharged a firearm during a commission of the offense (attempted 2nd degree murder.)
Count 3 – guilty of guilty of attempted 2nd degree murder, a lesser included offense. Defendant Dunn discharged a firearm during a commission of the offense (attempted 2nd degree murder.)
Count 4 – guilty of guilty of attempted 2nd degree murder, a lesser included offense. Defendant Dunn discharged a firearm during a commission of the offense (attempted 2nd degree murder.)
Count 5 – guilty of shooting or throwing deadly missiles as CHARGED in the indictment.
So, in this State of Florida v. Michael Dunn case, the defendant Dunn was convicted on four (4) out of five (5) counts as charged in the State of Florida’s information and charging document.
However, for some, the argument is being made that there is “something wrong with the jury system” and that the “jury system is broken” and “what are y’all doing down there in Florida” and things of this nature.
And, apparently, there are those who have been waiting for a legal analysis on this case matter. So let me begin.
First, I thought that there was a plausible argument for a successful prosecution for a 1st degree murder charge. Based upon the evidence admitted, a plausible argument can be made that the defendant, Dunn, had enough time to establish pre-mediation when, according to the evidence admitted, he took the time to go to the glove compartment of this car to get his handgun to then shoot at the decedent-victim Jordan Davis and kill him. On the other hand, I believe that because there was a “heated exchange” that happened before the shooting, it is also quite possible that the jury was not clear on the requisite “mens rea” required for a successful 1st degree conviction by the jury. As a result, the jury has spoken and has done its job, whether you like it or not. Indeed, this jury was able to convict the defendant Dunn on the lesser included charges and he is looking at a LONG time in jail.
As to the “something wrong with the jury system” and that the “jury system is broken” comments by some, well, I answer those comments with this; there is always Pyongyang North Korea for you to move to and reside with the “Great Leader” with the ugly ass hair cut. There, in Pyongyang, you have no guns in the citizen population. You have all of the guns in the possession of the government and they are used against the citizens. Also, in good ‘ol Pyongyang, when you have a trial, you have NO jury and you ALWAYS will know what the outcome of that trial will be because every right of those citizens is abdicated to the government. So, if this country is so bad, then Pyongyang may be the option for life and liberty for you.
If there is a better jury system in the world, please by all means, post it. And once you do, show me your flight ticket to that country showing the evidence that you are moving there. It should be a one-way ticket.
As to the issue of racism in this country? Yes, racism is still alive in this country. Indeed that is why I am pro-gun, pro F.S. 776.012 and the “ancillary” lethal self-defense statutes of this state, I am pro “stand your ground”, and that is why I am always armed, and why I went to a gun show yesterday and will continue to go to them and support them, and that is why I own a number of firearms, and I have an 800 lb gun safe, and that is why I am pro-2nd Amendment and pro-all civil rights. I refuse to give up any right. I refuse to not embrace all of my rights. As I have written before; We are the progeny of those who were once considered chattel. As a result, how the hell can you in any way embrace the act of eroding any right that is afforded to you under this constitution? Indeed, given the fact that all civil rights were not afforded to black-Americans because black-Americans were once considered a commodity that could be purchased, sold, and traded (i.e. “chattel”), and we are the direct descendents and progeny of those who suffered under the shameful institution called slavery, why would anyone want to not have the full and complete right to keep and bear arms for self-defense including the right to not have to retreat while under attack?
Finally, you cannot show one shred of evidence as to the “racism” demonstrated by this jury other than the argument that “racism must be there because this jury did not do what I wanted it to do!!” However, you can make that constitutionally protected argument.
Below is the full, CNN interview with Joseph Haynes Davis on the State of Florida v. Michael Dunn.