I would like to hear some feedback from jurors.

We can't (always) trust twittering, but FWIW The Davis family "Attorney", IANAL Phillips....

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

Whenever I see a clip of NastyJack.. or just read one of her tweets, I can not believe that she has a law degree.

I wonder how she managed that? clearly she could not have passed exams requiring logical thought and knowledge of the law.

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

Oh dear... a juror who held out for 1st degree murder. What is the point of having a trial?

as MOM tried to explain to NastyJack in the vid above... this was NOT 1st degree... even if you slept through the Self Defense bits.

Just have a fb/twitter poll and then lynch 'em.

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

If I am to retain any hope for humanity at all... I have to assume that this woman is the "odd man out". That she was one hold-out and the other 11 understood that the STATE failed to disprove Dunn's claim of Self defence. All will soon be revealed I guess? If that is not the case, then I have little faith in the Jury system at all going forward.

Assuming that she IS the one rotten apple, then I hope the lesson learned is that for the retrial, at jury selection time it is critical that you screen for willful ignorance.


I can certainy understand that there would be screaming and profanity

You can't fix stupid

I think that the verdicts on the other 4 counts are down to incorrect Jury instructions. The jury should not have deliberated on the remaining 4 counts until they had decided the critical issue of Self Defence (or not).

IANAL but I would hope there are grounds for an appeal there?

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

Unfortunately, most of the smart people get out of jury duty.

_________________

Not looking good for "Team Common sense"

Byron Pitts
Juror in #Dunn murder trial says most of the jurors thought he was guilty of murder But 2 holdouts became 3

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

Juror in 'Loud Music' Trial Wanted Murder Conviction
Feb. 19, 2014
By SENI TIENABESO via Nightline

One of the jurors in the controversial Florida “loud music” trial is speaking out, telling Nightline in an exclusive interview that the issue of self-defense forced the jury into a deadlock.

Juror #4 – who asked to be identified simply as “Valerie” – said two and then three jurors ultimately believed Michael Dunn was justified in the 2012 shooting death of Jordan Davis. Valerie, who wanted a conviction, says the group knew within the first hour that they would be unable to reach a unanimous decision.

The first thing jurors did when handed the case was turn to page 25 in the jury instructions, she said. The question: do you believe that Michael Dunn was justified or unjustified in the murder of Jordan Davis?”

"It said if he believed that he had an eminent threat to himself or his fiancee, so that was a thing that those two folks believed – he was frightened and there was no other option for him in regards to Mr. Davis,” Valerie said. “The rest of us were 100 percent sure, you didn't have to react [with gunfire], you could have had another option.

"We looked at a lot of evidence – and myself, it was where the gunshots were, the timing. Could he have had other options? To me, [the shooting] was unnecessary.”
[........]

According to Valerie, the jurors who believed Dunn was guilty were split between first-degree, second-degree and manslaughter – but because they were unable to unanimously overcome the issue of self-defense, the jury was deadlocked. The jurors yelled and screamed at each other at one point, but all were respectful of each other’s position.

Valerie believes Dunn got away with murder.

"A life was taken. There is no longer a Jordan Davis, and there is only one reason why that is. The boy was shot and killed for reasons that should not have happened," she said.

Valerie believes that Dunn could have rolled up his window, put his car in reverse, or simply ignored the loud music blaring from the other car. Despite the disagreement over whether shooting Davis was justified, all the jurors agreed that Dunn escalated the situation by then shooting at the others inside the car, she said.

Valerie decided to come forward after reading and hearing the outrage the verdict generated. She wants the world to know that the jurors valued the life of Davis. Race was never mentioned in deliberations and was not a factor in the decision, she said.

"Folks don't know the law. It's not that we didn't value Mr. Davis life. We had to make a choice," she said.

...more at link
http://abcnews.go.com/US/juror-loud-mus ... d=22571068

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

"Valerie believes that Dunn could have rolled up his window, put his car in reverse, or simply ignored the loud music blaring from the other car."

Was Valerie asleep during the trial?

THAT was not the point... the loud music was not the issue.. it was the threats of death and Davis brandishing a shotgun (as far as Dunn was concerned/claimed at least)

Dunn was not on trial for having asked for the music to be turned down. I personally don't see that as an unreasonable thing to do... but for those who are happy to live with a "Safari Park" mentality, who think the request unwise.. it was still just a request... Davis may well have said FU... that sadly might be what most accept as normal from teens... but THAT was not what this trial was about. It was about Davis going way beyond that, according to Dunn's defense. The jury should have required that the State disprove that claim by Dunn. The State had an uphill battle trying to do that, because LE failed to investigate that claim at all, and so the benefit of the doubt has to go to Dunn. Those people who THINK Dunn is guilty should be really pissed at LE failings. If LE had checked out the plaza at the time, and done even a half-assed search for a shotgun and failed to find one.. then THAT would have been the evidence that the Prosecutors needed to refute Dunn's self defense claim. Since LE DID NOT do that... they dropped the ball. With a reasonable and plausible claim from Dunn.. and no evidence to refute it.. he should have been given the benefit of the REASONABLE DOUBT!!! That is the Judicial system we have (and cherish)... the Golden thread.

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

Natalie went to the law school of emotion and opinion. Mark went to a real law school. Sheesh. Even I know it was not a case for 1st DM, and IANAL

_________________

“You just hold your head high and keep those fists down. No matter what anybody says to you, don't you let 'em get your goat. Try fightin' with your head for a change.
-Atticus Finch”

IF the jury had first decided on Dunn's claim of self defense, I think they had to then decide how far that self defense extended as far as Dunn's actions go. In particular the critical 3 extra shots as the car was leaving. Who knows what is, and is not, legitimate in such circumstances with adrenalin pumping. If there was no pause would 3 more shots be ok? Would a 1 sec pause be ok? 2 seconds? Who is to say? I think the "expert witness" that Dunn was denied might well have addressed those questions... so perhaps yet another ground for appeal that such testimony was denied.
Popular drama often has the "good guys" continuing to shoot at bad guys leaving in a car. That common image might well have some bearing. A person who has never fired a gun at another person... thrust into what he sees as an ongoing threat to his life, would not KNOW what is OK, and what is one shot too many. If the only reference you have is what you have seen in movies, then you might not only empty your magazine as the car retreated.. but you would quickly eject the clip, slap in another clip, and run after the car firing as you went, jumping on the hoods of other cars etc. Finally, with the second clip empty, you might throw the empty weapon at the car (and miss) and shout "ass-holes!" That is all a bit silly.. but movies may well be the only example that Dunn had to reference and so in just firing 3 shots soon after the first volley he WAS being restrained.
I do think the expert, or some other expert may have valuable evidence as to how people might be expected to behave when thrust into a life threatening situation and having to use potentially lethal force for the first time in their lives. With no specific training or anything to reference other than what they had seen in movies.

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

When they didn't search for a weapon got to me. And saying he could have rolled up the window and put the car in reverse tells me that person has no idea what's it's like being shot at.

The question this juror states was on page 25 of the jury instructions, is that an accurate rendition of the question on the actual jury instructions? Or is that only what this juror recalls of the question? If it was an accurate rendition of the actual jury instructions, I really do have a problem with that. How could the jury instructions call the defendant a "murderer" before any conviction? If it did, I would expect Dunn to appeal his convictions on that error.

This Atlantic article is interesting and the comments that follow. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... ry/283930/

The Logic of the Michael Dunn Jury

The most amazing feature of our era is the belief that 300 years of racist policy gives no tell on our daily lives. The second is the belief that juries are somehow beyond reproach.


Ta-Nehisi Coates


Feb 19 2014, 10:15 AM ET

Good point Seeing_eye.... but I would bet it did not say "murderer" in the written instructions.

It is, however a "Freudian slip" on the part of the juror (and/or Tienabesco). It shows prejudgement.

Does she say that on video? I'll have to check... brb

I checked.
Starting at 3:36 she does mention "page 25" To be fair to her, she does not say murdered... she has been misquoted by a sloppy "journalist" with an agenda of his own... what a surprise

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light