Last night
Michael Dunn, the middle-aged software designer who got into a
deadly argument over loud music at a Jacksonville, Florida, gas
station in 2012, was
convicted of attempted murder charges for firing a gun at
an SUV in which four teenagers were sitting. But the jury
deadlocked on a murder charge related to the death of 17-year-old
Jordan Davis, the passenger Dunn killed. According to
The New York Times, the case was “the latest courtroom
test for Florida’s expansive self-defense statutes, including the
so-called Stand Your Ground provision.” But did the outcome of the
trial actually
hinge on any special feature of Florida’s law, or is this
another case, like the George Zimmerman trial last summer, where
critics of the statute perceive a connection that
does not really exist?
Without knowing what the holdout juror or jurors was/were
thinking, it is impossible to say for sure. The right to “stand
your ground” when attacked in a public place
did not figure prominently in the trial, but Dunn’s lawyer,
Cory Strolla, did mention it during his closing argument,
saying, “His honor will further tell you that if Michael Dunn
was in a public place where he had a legal right to be, he had no
duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet
force with force, including deadly force.” As in the Zimmerman
case, the
jury instruction concerning justifiable homicide mentioned that
right, and it is more plausible in this case that it made a
difference, since Dunn arguably could have driven away even if, as
he claimed, Davis menaced him with a shotgun. (By contrast,
Zimmerman’s account of the fight that ended in Trayvon Martin’s
death, which was supported by substantial evidence and seems to
have been
accepted by the jury, precluded the possibility of retreat,
since Zimmerman claimed Martin knocked him to the ground and was on
top of him, smacking his head against the concrete.) Then again,
even states that impose a duty to retreat make an exception when it
cannot be done safely, and driving away from a gunman who has just
threatened to kill you (per Dunn’s account) would be pretty
risky.
About that alleged gun: Police never found it, although Strolla
argued that Davis’ friends had time to ditch it and could have
retrieved it later, before a thorough search of the area was
conducted. The fact that Strolla
said the purported weapon might have been a “lead pipe” or a
“stick” did not inspire confidence in Dunn’s story, which was
further undermined by the testimony of Strolla’s girlfriend, who
was with him immediately after the shooting and during the
following day. She
said he never mentioned a shotgun to her. Under Florida’s
self-defense law, the Times claims, Dunn “needed only
to be convinced that he saw a shotgun, whether or not one was
present.” That is not quite right. Dunn had to
reasonably believe Davis was threatening him with
a shotgun. If his perceptions were colored by irrational
preconceptions concerning the violent propensities of surly black
teenagers listening to “thug” music (as seems plausible), his
belief, even if sincere, was not reasonable. In any case, the fact
that Dunn fled the scene and did not call the police, who located
him the next day via the license plate number seen by a witness,
strongly suggests he did not really believe the shooting was
justified. Furthermore, the fact that Dunn continued to fire on the
SUV as it pulled away is consistent with the prosecution’s theory
that he acted out of anger rather than fear.
Given the fishy elements of Dunn’s story and behavior, it may
seem surprising that the jurors, who had the
options of second-degree murder and manslaughter as well as
first-degree murder, could not agree that his use of deadly force
against Davis was not justified. But the prosecution had to prove
beyond a reasonable doubt that Dunn was not acting in
self-defense, and if one juror believed it did not meet that test,
that would have been enough to block a verdict. The holdout would
not have to be convinced that Dunn was telling the truth; he would
merely have to think that believing Dunn was reasonable. The
absence of a duty to retreat might have made a
difference in that judgment, but it is not at all clear that it
did.
Prosecutors plan to try Dunn again on the murder charge. Already
he
faces at least 20 years in prison under Florida’s “10-20-life”
rules for crimes involving guns, and he could receive a sentence as
long as 75 years (a life sentence, effectively) if the judge
decides that the terms for each count should be served
consecutively. Dunn is scheduled to be sentenced the week of March
24.
from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1grPOsx
via IFTTT