Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial

[luckytxn 2,264]

There was a hung jury but never read there was a mistrial.

I thought I read the judge declared a mistrial, no?

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

I thought I read the judge declared a mistrial, no?

correct. Because of a hung jury. No conviction, no acquittal. The state has the option of wasting their time again.

[Ban Hammer 13,343]

5 posts removed - 3 for use of a denigrating term, 2 for quoting.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Don't you have some very important work to do elsewhere?

It's a holiday. Paid day off!

Thought you would enjoy the information

[JohnR! 5,495]

I thought I read the judge declared a mistrial, no?

A hung jury is one that could not reach a unanimous verdict, which is required for first degree murder conviction/acquittal. In this case, the prosecution has the right to petition for a new trial and empanel a new jury. Oftentimes this right is not exercised. As a result of a hung jury, the ruling must be a mistrial, without prejudice to either party.

In this particular case, the 2nd degree murder convictions may be enough the prosecution to work out a sentencing deal. They may ask for a complete sentence, no parole, or any other benefits as a guarantee they will forgo their right to a second trial in which to try a conviction for first degree murder again.

Hopefully Dunn will get to spend a long time in jail and the Fla will be just a tad safer for everyone else.

[Novembro 1,763]

It's a holiday. Paid day off!

Thought you would enjoy the information

jealous.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Because some of the jury actually thought the shooting was justified.

No. Because some actually thought it was not pre-meditated. The prosecutor should have gone for 2nd degree murder and they would have received a conviction.

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

OR Marvin, they didn't think it was 1st degree murder, which it clearly wasn't.

IMO it was. Once again, someone starts a confrontation, then used a gun and killed a person when things got heated.

No. Because some actually thought it was not pre-meditated. The prosecutor should have gone for 2nd degree murder and they would have received a conviction.

Sigh.

[Penny Lane 8,159]

IMO it was. Once again, someone starts a confrontation, then used a gun and killed a person when things got heated.

How was it 1st degree murder?

[GandD 5,966]

IMO it was. Once again, someone starts a confrontation, then used a gun and killed a person when things got heated.

Then your opinion is different from the breakdown of the law. Premeditated means planned before the incident. This occurred during the incident.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

God, you need to stop posting.

You have no idea what you're talking about. They didn't overreach, that man murdered that boy in the car. But people on that jury actually think that it was justified. That Jordan Davis was a threat to Mr. Dunn, and they believed him more than the 3 black teenagers that testified against him.

What more evidence do you want Gary? He fired 10 shots into a vehicle full of teenagers, 4 while sitting there, then more when they tried to flee. He got out of his car and kept shooting. Then he left the scene of the confrontation, didn't tell his fiance he saw a gun, didn't call 911, went back to his room and had a pizza, walked the dog, and then left in the morning to drive another 175 miles back to his hometown. Guess that's normal to you.

I say as least because it's the best his family could get. I hate it more than you ever will because you're so closed minded you can't fathom what it's like.

I'll overlook the personal insults and consider the source.

I would need, for a conviction of 1st degree murder, evidence that the assailant planned the attack in advance and conducted himself in a manner to cause it to happen. No such evidence exists, which is why they could not get a conviction on the charge of 1st degree murder.

The number of shots he fired has nothing to do with it, neither does anything else you mentioned. No evidence of pre-meditation.

2nd degree murder is a slam dunk, but the prosecutor did not go for that because racially motivated people would have been outraged. There was a demand to go for "all the marbles" Didn't work.

Only those who had unreasonable expectations are disappointed.

Now he is in prison on attempted murder conviction and can be paroled a lot sooner than a 2nd degree murder charge AND he is not even convicted of killing the boy he killed. How on earth would his parents receive "peace" from that?

."Don't worry, the guy that killed your son is in prison for trying to kill someone else"

Florida is not well served, and not safer, by the idiotic decisions being made by prosecutors to satisfy racially motivated people that will bever be satisfied.

[luckytxn 2,264]

None of your opinions are deserve respect.

I'll overlook the personal insults and consider the source.

I would need, for a conviction of 1st degree murder, evidence that the assailant planned the attack in advance and conducted himself in a manner to cause it to happen. No such evidence exists, which is why they could not get a conviction on the charge of 1st degree murder.

The number of shots he fired has nothing to do with it, neither does anything else you mentioned. No evidence of pre-meditation.

2nd degree murder is a slam dunk, but the prosecutor did not go for that because racially motivated people would have been outraged. There was a demand to go for "all the marbles" Didn't work.

Only those who had unreasonable expectations are disappointed.

Now he is in prison on attempted murder conviction and can be paroled a lot sooner than a 2nd degree murder charge AND he is not even convicted of killing the boy he killed. How on earth would his parents receive "peace" from that?

."Don't worry, the guy that killed your son is in prison for trying to kill someone else"

Florida is not well served, and not safer, by the idiotic decisions being made by prosecutors to satisfy racially motivated people that will bever be satisfied.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

IMO it was. Once again, someone starts a confrontation, then used a gun and killed a person when things got heated.

Sigh.

Your opinion, fortunately, does not matter. Such things are a matter of law.

But clearly you are one that would not have been satisfied with a 2nd degree murder charge and are one of the people they tried to appease with a charge they could not prove. The killer is not convicted and you are not satisfied. Predictable. You got what you asked for.

[JohnR! 5,495]

How was it 1st degree murder?

There is a scenario in which 1st degree murder would apply and I believe this is where the jury got hung.

First-degree murder involves premeditation, but the very definition of premeditation, in the legal sense, is not all too clear. In the classical sense, it is easy to understand it: You buy a gun for the purpose of killing someone and carries it through. In the case of Dunn, it is quite clear he did not leave his home with the intention of shooting anyone but the moment he pulled out his gun to shoot the unarmed kid, premeditation took place. He was not in a fight, defending himself, nor can he claim anything other than he had a gun, the other guy didn't, and he decided to prove his point in the worst possible way. A prosecutor can make the case that the moment Dunn went to his car and pulled out his gun, premeditation attached. He was not in imminent danger, nor was he being attacked. Many consider that premeditation, as evidenced by the jury.

[sandinista! 1,816]

There is a scenario in which 1st degree murder would apply and I believe this is where the jury got hung.

First-degree murder involves premeditation, but the very definition of premeditation, in the legal sense, is not all too clear. In the classical sense, it is easy to understand it: You buy a gun for the purpose of killing someone and carries it through. In the case of Dunn, it is quite clear he did not leave his home with the intention of shooting anyone but the moment he pulled out his gun to shoot the unarmed kid, premeditation took place. He was not in a fight, defending himself, nor can he claim anything other than he had a gun, the other guy didn't, and he decided to prove his point in the worst possible way. A prosecutor can make the case that the moment Dunn went to his car and pulled out his gun, premeditation attached. He was not in imminent danger, nor was he being attacked. Many consider that premeditation, as evidenced by the jury.

This, exactly. There was no requirement for the prosecution to enter into evidence pages from Dunn's journal reading "Dear Diary, tomorrow is when I'll finally be carrying out my long standing plans to shoot a black kid." to prove premeditation. Like the prosecutor said over the weekend, there is no time frame for premeditation.