What is the story about the guy he shot having a shotgun in the car?
TV said that the shooter maintains that was the case, but I did not
hear if that was ever introduced as evidence. Not making excuses
for the guy, just looking for the facts.

Unclear.

What is clear however is that the police botched the investigation by
not searching the area immediately, leaving it entirely a "reasonable
doubt" as to weather such a shotgun did exist and those in the car
disposed of it in the time they were away from the gas station.

As to the shotgun -- testimony from his girlfriend revealed that
he Dunn never mentioned another weapon being involved.

He drove off to his motel, ordered a pizza, and slept off the numerous
drinks he had earlier that evening at a wedding reception.

What is wrong with morons in Fl. They can't comprehend what murder is anymore??

On Monday, February 17, 2014 2:19:52 PM UTC-5, Oren wrote:
On Mon, 17 Feb 2014 08:43:20 -0800 (PST), "

wrote:



He shot a gun in commission of a felony and someone was hit. That is



the test.





But he was *not* convicted of hitting anyone. He was convicted of

3 counts of attempted murder for the other 3 occupants of the car.

The jusry deadlocked on the more serious charge.

So, if it requires someone to be hit, no one was hit in the crimes he was convicted of. And if it's 25 years, why aren't we seing that number

anywhere else. The most I see is 20 X 3, with the possbility that

since he is a first time offender, they could be served concurrently.



GUILTY - Counts 2, 3, 4,: Attempted Murder, Second Degree



GUILTY - Count 5: Shooting or Throwing Deadly Missile



Firing the weapon (Count 5), Mandatory, consecutive to the other

convictions. Regardless if he missed or injured a person.



The guy is toast. The 10-20-Like law - "Use A Gun And You're Done".



"...Dunn is now scheduled to have a sentencing hearing the week of

March 24. He faces a potential 105 years in prison on the four

convictions, and under Florida’s minimum mandatory laws must be

sentenced to at least 60 years."



http://members.jacksonville.com/news/crime/2014-02-15/story/dunn-guilty-attempted-murder-hung-jury-murder-jordan-davis



Oh, this is the same State Attorney Angela Corey - her district.

I read that article. If you google you'll find a lot of other
papers saying that 60 years is not mandatory, just that he faces
up to that, etc. What I agree is
mandatory is the 20 years for the use of a gun, that you cite above.
There are papers saying that the other terms for the crime could run
concurrently with each other, depending on the judge. So from
what I see the judge could give him 20 years for each of the attempted
murders and have those run concurrently. What would a similar person,
only convicted of attempted murder get in FL get for the attempted
murder charge? IDK, but I'd be surprised if it was more than 20 years
total for the attempted murders that were all part of one brief event.
So, by my math, I could see a sentence of 20
for the crimes plus 20 for the 10-20 law, which is 40 years.
That's essentially life, so while we differ in the details, the
result is the same.

83LowRider wrote:

What is the story about the guy he shot having a shotgun in the car?
TV said that the shooter maintains that was the case, but I did not
hear if that was ever introduced as evidence. Not making excuses
for the guy, just looking for the facts.

Unclear.

What is clear however is that the police botched the investigation by
not searching the area immediately, leaving it entirely a "reasonable
doubt" as to weather such a shotgun did exist and those in the car
disposed of it in the time they were away from the gas station.

As to the shotgun -- testimony from his girlfriend revealed that
he Dunn never mentioned another weapon being involved.

He drove off to his motel, ordered a pizza, and slept off the numerous
drinks he had earlier that evening at a wedding reception.

How talkative are you when you've just had a traumatic experience and
are also still a bit drunk?

On Sun, 16 Feb 2014 14:43:35 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Sun, 16 Feb 2014 14:25:44 -0500, micky
wrote:

First degree murder, premeditated murder does not require that one sit
in his room making plans weeks or days or hours in advance. it doesn't
require that someone make a special purchase of a weapon or that he plan
to meet someone somewhere. The intention and the premeditation
necessary for first degree murder can be formed one second before the
act is committed.

I'm not sure premeditation can be formed in "one second".

Without debating that one, how about 3 seconds. No more than that is
needed in many states.

One example someone gave on the radio today, from one state, was the
time between the first time one pulled the trigger and the second time,
and that means consecutive shots, without a pause in between.

Consider crimes of passion. Often acts that are instantaneous.

Occasions where premeditation is not found for one reason or anotehr
don't change the minimum time necessary when those reasons are not
present.

The Burning Bed Defense?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Burning_Bed

" Hughes went to court in Lansing, Michigan, and found by a jury of
her peers to be not guilty by reason of temporary insanity."

On Sun, 16 Feb 2014 14:43:20 -0500, micky
wrote:

On Sun, 16 Feb 2014 14:32:16 -0500, micky
wrote:

On Sun, 16 Feb 2014 08:05:49 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:


=20
If the sentence is set to run concurrently then he
=20
would be given 20 years... out in 13.=20
=20

=20
=20
=20
Not in Florida. The gun charge itself is 25 to life and our law says
=20
you have to serve 85%. minimum

This is the most detailed analysis I've seen of the actual convictions and =
possible sentences:

http://legalinsurrection.com/2014/02...-dunn-guilty-=
of-most-charges/

"Detailed Charges on Which Dunn Found Guilty
=20
Among the charges of which he has been found guilty a
=20
Three counts of attempted murder in the second degree (FL =A7782.051) for s=
hooting at Kevin Thompson, Leland Brunson, and Tommy Storns, the three frie=
nds with Jordan Davis in Storns' SUV

The other boy in the front seat did turn down the radio when the guy
complained, according to him,

Now that I read here that the boy in the passenger seat was the one who
was killed, I guess it was someone else who said he turned the radio
down. Maybe it was the driver.

If it was a portable radio, not the car radio, it coudl have been
someone in the back seat who turned it down, and the other guy in the
back seat who turned it bck up.

The video of him saying that was taken
over his left shoulder, and it looked like he was sitting in the
passenger seat, but I suppose they all would be out of the car before
someone showed up to inteveriew them.

but the driver turned it up again.

But "someone else turned it up again", he said. I had assumed that was
the driver, but I should have said it was the driver.

AIUI, it appears the shooter had just driven into the parking place.
If he didn't like the noise, he could have backed out that spot and
parked somewhere else. Later, when they got into a yelling match,
and, he says, he thought he saw a shotgun, it would have probably taken
less time to start the car and back up than it took to lean over to the
glove box, get the gun, chamber a bullet and shoot. Plus, unless he
killed the guy with the alleged shotgun on the first shot, shooting at
him would be almost certain to get him to shoot back at you. But just
backing up is much less likely to cause him to shoot and in a few
seconds, the driver would be too far back to get hit without the alleged
shotgun guy getting out of the car or shooting through his own rear
window.

One reporter from NBC suggested that the hung jury on murder occcurred
because at least one jurror believed that the shooter might have thought
there was a shotgun, but the three convictions for murder were based on
his shooting at the SUV as it was driving away. He plainly wasn't in
any danger then but he was still shooting!! So even the negatvie jury
votes on murder would agree on attempted murder for the other 3.
Maybe the NBC guy is right.





Maybe it was the one on the right he was referring to, who turned it up
again.

What do this case, Trayvon Martin, the shooting of the movie texter have
in common. All by someone carrying a gun. At least two of them
carrying the gun for no special reason.

During this same period there was another teenager accosted and he was
hit over the head with a cell phone. If there was a bruise, it was gone
in a couple days. Partly because his accoster was carrying only a cell
phone, not a gun.

On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 12:59:35 -0500, micky
wrote:

What do this case, Trayvon Martin, the shooting of the movie texter have
in common. All by someone carrying a gun. At least two of them
carrying the gun for no special reason.

You don't need a "special" reason to carry a gun. Self defense from
stink-eyes and tyrannical government are the reason. My Sate
Constitution and the U.S. Constitution clearly state the right to keep
and bear arms shall not be infringed. Supported by SCOTUS rulings.

What do you call a special reason?

--
'...we don't wanna bring our guns, but ready if it goes there -- Madison Rising

On Tuesday, February 18, 2014 12:59:35 PM UTC-5, micky wrote:
On Sun, 16 Feb 2014 14:43:20 -0500, micky

wrote:



On Sun, 16 Feb 2014 14:32:16 -0500, micky

wrote:



On Sun, 16 Feb 2014 08:05:49 -0800 (PST), "

wrote:





=20

If the sentence is set to run concurrently then he

=20

would be given 20 years... out in 13.=20

=20



=20

=20

=20

Not in Florida. The gun charge itself is 25 to life and our law says

=20

you have to serve 85%. minimum



This is the most detailed analysis I've seen of the actual convictions and =

possible sentences:



http://legalinsurrection.com/2014/02...-dunn-guilty-=

of-most-charges/



"Detailed Charges on Which Dunn Found Guilty

=20

Among the charges of which he has been found guilty a

=20

Three counts of attempted murder in the second degree (FL =A7782.051) for s=

hooting at Kevin Thompson, Leland Brunson, and Tommy Storns, the three frie=

nds with Jordan Davis in Storns' SUV



The other boy in the front seat did turn down the radio when the guy

complained, according to him,



Now that I read here that the boy in the passenger seat was the one who

was killed, I guess it was someone else who said he turned the radio

down. Maybe it was the driver.



If it was a portable radio, not the car radio, it coudl have been

someone in the back seat who turned it down, and the other guy in the

back seat who turned it bck up.



The video of him saying that was taken

over his left shoulder, and it looked like he was sitting in the

passenger seat, but I suppose they all would be out of the car before

someone showed up to inteveriew them.



but the driver turned it up again.



But "someone else turned it up again", he said. I had assumed that was

the driver, but I should have said it was the driver.



AIUI, it appears the shooter had just driven into the parking place.

If he didn't like the noise, he could have backed out that spot and

parked somewhere else. Later, when they got into a yelling match,

and, he says, he thought he saw a shotgun, it would have probably taken

less time to start the car and back up than it took to lean over to the

glove box, get the gun, chamber a bullet and shoot. Plus, unless he

killed the guy with the alleged shotgun on the first shot, shooting at

him would be almost certain to get him to shoot back at you.

As I've pointed out a few times now, it's worse than that. He opened fire
on the guy in the passenger seat. That makes no sense. If you thought
someone in the back seat had a shotgun, then they are in a perfect
position to blow you away when you open fire on their buddy who's
in front. Also, you have the fact that you wouldn't think a
rational person would go up against a shotgun that hadn't been fired
with a pistol. And top it off with the fact that in the driver seat,
you're in a very difficult spot to deal with someone with a shotgun
in the back seat. What are you going to do? Turn, try to shoot over
your shoulder, car pillar possibly blocking you, etc.....


But just

backing up is much less likely to cause him to shoot and in a few

seconds, the driver would be too far back to get hit without the alleged

shotgun guy getting out of the car or shooting through his own rear

window.

I agree, from what I've read so far, that appears to have been
the best option. But it's not a real good one either, because
if the guy does have a shotgun, he can easily shoot you while
you're backing up.





One reporter from NBC suggested that the hung jury on murder occcurred

because at least one jurror believed that the shooter might have thought

there was a shotgun, but the three convictions for murder were based on

his shooting at the SUV as it was driving away. He plainly wasn't in

any danger then but he was still shooting!! So even the negatvie jury

votes on murder would agree on attempted murder for the other 3.

Maybe the NBC guy is right.


I would think he's very likely correct.












Maybe it was the one on the right he was referring to, who turned it up

again.



What do this case, Trayvon Martin, the shooting of the movie texter have

in common. All by someone carrying a gun. At least two of them

carrying the gun for no special reason.



And let's also look at all the cases where carrying a gun prevented
a violent crime from happening. Of course you won't hear about those
much because the lib media only wants to make a spectacle of cases
where it goes the other way.






During this same period there was another teenager accosted and he was

hit over the head with a cell phone. If there was a bruise, it was gone

in a couple days. Partly because his accoster was carrying only a cell

phone, not a gun.

It would be nice if all perps out to rape, loot, pillage or kill only
carreed a cell phone, but many choose to use a gun. If you run up
against one of those, a cell phone isn't going to do you much good.

posted for all of us...

And I know how to SNIP

Corey simply overcharged in this case ... again.


Is she trying to run for another office? Seems like a publicity hound. But I repeat myself...

--
Tekkie

Oren posted for all of us...

And I know how to SNIP


On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 12:59:35 -0500, micky
wrote:

What do this case, Trayvon Martin, the shooting of the movie texter have
in common. All by someone carrying a gun. At least two of them
carrying the gun for no special reason.

You don't need a "special" reason to carry a gun. Self defense from
stink-eyes and tyrannical government are the reason. My Sate
Constitution and the U.S. Constitution clearly state the right to keep
and bear arms shall not be infringed. Supported by SCOTUS rulings.

What do you call a special reason?

HIS definition of "I don't like it" or speaking to a kid - "because I said so"

--
Tekkie

On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 18:25:52 -0500, Tekkie®
wrote:

Oren posted for all of us...

And I know how to SNIP


On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 12:59:35 -0500, micky
wrote:

What do this case, Trayvon Martin, the shooting of the movie texter have
in common. All by someone carrying a gun. At least two of them
carrying the gun for no special reason.

You don't need a "special" reason to carry a gun. Self defense from
stink-eyes and tyrannical government are the reason. My Sate
Constitution and the U.S. Constitution clearly state the right to keep
and bear arms shall not be infringed. Supported by SCOTUS rulings.

What do you call a special reason?

HIS definition of "I don't like it" or speaking to a kid - "because I said so"

Oh. The do as I say, not as I do approach.

--
"The definition of a liberal, a liberal is somebody that doesn't care what you do as long as it's mandatory". -- Charles Krauthammer

In article ,
wrote:

On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 05:07:34 -0800 (PST), "Daring Dufas: Hypocrite
TeaBillie on welfare" wrote:

What is wrong with morons in Fl. They can't comprehend what murder is
anymore??


Corey simply overcharged in this case ... again.

She tried to sell the jury on 1st degree murder and that muddied the
water on the first shot. The jury agreed that continuing to shoot
after the threat was gone was a crime.

They are talking about refiling the 1st degree charge. Since he was
already convicted, how is that not double jeopardy?
--
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital."
-- Aaron Levenstein

On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 16:33:39 -0500, Tekkie®
wrote:

Corey simply overcharged in this case ... again.


Is she trying to run for another office? Seems like a publicity hound. But I repeat myself...

Correct on all accounts.

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message

They are talking about refiling the 1st degree charge. Since he was
already convicted, how is that not double jeopardy?

Hung jury on the one who was killed. The three attempted murder charges
covered the surviving three occupants. The jury did not acquit on murder
one or the lesser charges on the victim, they could not agree to a verdict.
Don't worry. Although the jury is mum for now, my J-prof assured me that 12
people can't keep a secret like that and so far he's been right. Someone
always talks.

Then we'll find out that there was at least one holdout who believed in the
magic shotgun theory.

Magic because Dunn's GF said he never mentioned it until long after the
shooting.

Magic because Dunn was drunk enough to not really know what he was seeing.

Magic because the occupants did not fire back with the alleged shotgun but
ran instead.

Magic because Dunn didn't bother reporting the incident and had to be
tracked down by the cops.

Magic because it was never found nor could the defense prove the occupants
ever owned or had access to a shotgun.

Magic because no corroboration of any kind exists for that story which
sounds like it came from the fertile mind of a defense attorney.

Too bad for him the magical story appears not to have worked on the other
charges of attempted murder.

They almost have to refile on the most serious charge because the jury DID
convict on the attempted murder counts. The state will no doubt refine its
case once the jurors start talking about the deliberations. For me it
hinges on how can a drunk or stoned person reasonable evaluate if his life
is in danger when his perception is legally impaired. We say it's illegal
to drive a car that could kill someone when impaired but don't question if
that impairment affects their decision to shoot someone. Eventually Florida
will refine its laws once enough of these cases occur.

The outstanding charge is really bad news for Dunn who could still be freed
if he wins at appeal. He could win on appeal but lose again on murder one
at a retrial. Frankly, I don't think he can win on appeal because the state
had some pretty big guns on the case.

Can't wait to see what happens to the man who was lethally defending himself
against a popcorn attack. Apparently like Dunn couldn't find another
parking space, the gun made it impossible for the popcorn killer to find
another seat. That's the well-known downside of letting every warm body (it
seems) carry a weapon. Shouting matches and fistfights now become
homicides - very expensive homicides. I can't imagine this will be cheap
for our fellow Floridians. Nor do imagine that these cases will stop as a
result of these two trials. The genie is out of the bottle.

--
Bobby G.

On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 20:02:47 -0500, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

She tried to sell the jury on 1st degree murder and that muddied the
water on the first shot. The jury agreed that continuing to shoot
after the threat was gone was a crime.

They are talking about refiling the 1st degree charge. Since he was
already convicted, how is that not double jeopardy?

Good question. Does a hung jury prevent another bite at the apple vs
a not guilty verdict, which would be double jeopardy.

Feds could come with a civil rights violation, which would not be
double jeopardy as it would be a court of a different jurisdiction.

If the verdict was not guilty, yes it would be double jeopardy in the
same jurisdiction. IME.

On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 05:34:06 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

What would a similar person,
only convicted of attempted murder get in FL get for the attempted
murder charge? IDK, but I'd be surprised if it was more than 20 years
total for the attempted murders that were all part of one brief event.
So, by my math, I could see a sentence of 20
for the crimes plus 20 for the 10-20 law, which is 40 years.
That's essentially life, so while we differ in the details, the
result is the same.

IDK. I think the 20 is a mandatory minimum for each of the attempted
murder charges. He could get more than that, per conviction, IIUC -
plus the consecutive for the gun crime. I'm not sure if the attempted
murder convictions are not also consecutive, per conviction.

wrote in message news:df0e30a5-7923-4876-abc8-

stuff snipped

As I've pointed out a few times now, it's worse than that. He opened fire
on the guy in the passenger seat. That makes no sense. If you thought
someone in the back seat had a shotgun, then they are in a perfect
position to blow you away when you open fire on their buddy who's
in front.

Exactly right. If they had a shotgun, why didn't they use it to return fire
but sped away instead? Even though they had been fired upon and allegedly
had a shotgun, they chose not to stand their ground. I believe *strongly*
that had they been armed, they WOULD have returned fire so the lack of
return fire is almost certain proof they were unarmed. In addition, Dunn's
GF testified he never mentioned the shotgun until much later.

--
Bobby G.

On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 1:41:27 AM UTC-5, Robert Green wrote:
wrote in message news:df0e30a5-7923-4876-abc8-



stuff snipped



As I've pointed out a few times now, it's worse than that. He opened fire

on the guy in the passenger seat. That makes no sense. If you thought

someone in the back seat had a shotgun, then they are in a perfect

position to blow you away when you open fire on their buddy who's

in front.



Exactly right. If they had a shotgun, why didn't they use it to return fire

but sped away instead? Even though they had been fired upon and allegedly

had a shotgun, they chose not to stand their ground. I believe *strongly*

that had they been armed, they WOULD have returned fire so the lack of

return fire is almost certain proof they were unarmed. In addition, Dunn's

GF testified he never mentioned the shotgun until much later.



--

Bobby G.

Is she still his girlfriend? Ironically, her testimony apparently
didn't hurt him.

On Tuesday, February 18, 2014 9:12:04 PM UTC-5, Oren wrote:
On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 20:02:47 -0500, Kurt Ullman

wrote:



She tried to sell the jury on 1st degree murder and that muddied the

water on the first shot. The jury agreed that continuing to shoot

after the threat was gone was a crime.



They are talking about refiling the 1st degree charge. Since he was

already convicted, how is that not double jeopardy?



Good question. Does a hung jury prevent another bite at the apple vs

a not guilty verdict, which would be double jeopardy.



With a hung jury the prosecution can retry as many times as they
want to try. DJ only applies if they are found guilty.



Feds could come with a civil rights violation, which would not be

double jeopardy as it would be a court of a different jurisdiction.



Yes, and that's always been something that doesn't seem quite right.
You could be found not guilty of say murder and then, if you happen to
be the wrong color, the feds could come after you for a civil rights
violation. Sure sounds like double jeopardy there to me.




If the verdict was not guilty, yes it would be double jeopardy in the

same jurisdiction. IME.

Yes.

On Tuesday, February 18, 2014 8:41:59 PM UTC-5, Robert Green wrote:
"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message



They are talking about refiling the 1st degree charge. Since he was

already convicted, how is that not double jeopardy?



Hung jury on the one who was killed. The three attempted murder charges

covered the surviving three occupants. The jury did not acquit on murder

one or the lesser charges on the victim, they could not agree to a verdict.

Don't worry. Although the jury is mum for now, my J-prof assured me that 12

people can't keep a secret like that and so far he's been right. Someone

always talks.



Then we'll find out that there was at least one holdout who believed in the

magic shotgun theory.



Magic because Dunn's GF said he never mentioned it until long after the

shooting.



Magic because Dunn was drunk enough to not really know what he was seeing.



AFAIK, no one ever proved that or anything close to it at trial.




Magic because the occupants did not fire back with the alleged shotgun but

ran instead.



Magic because Dunn didn't bother reporting the incident and had to be

tracked down by the cops.



Magic because it was never found nor could the defense prove the occupants

ever owned or had access to a shotgun.



They did drive 300 ft away to another parking lot. The police never
secured that area and didn't search it for the alleged shotgun until
4 days later. Witnesses also could not account for the whereabouts of
all the other 3 during the period immediately after the shooting.
Leaving the possibility that they could have gotten rid of a shotgun.





Magic because no corroboration of any kind exists for that story which

sounds like it came from the fertile mind of a defense attorney.


AFAIK, it came from Dunn himself when he was questioned by police.
If he made it up, it sure doesn't take a lawyer to come up with that
little tale. If some thought had gone into it, I'm sure they could
have come up with a lot better. Plus it would be a crime for the
lawyer to tell his defendant to lie to the police and/or court.




Too bad for him the magical story appears not to have worked on the other

charges of attempted murder.



Because it couldn't work.




They almost have to refile on the most serious charge because the jury DID

convict on the attempted murder counts.

And why is that? It seems almost a certainty, unless the judge
does something totally bizarre, that he's going to get at least 20+20=40
years, ie essentially a life sentence. IMO, a total sentence of
20 years would be more appropriate. You have all kinds of people
who have done far worse, doing a lot less time. And many of those
have long criminal records. Dunn has no priors. Whatever happened,
it was a spur of the moment thing, not a premeditated crime wave
by a career criminal.


The state will no doubt refine its

case once the jurors start talking about the deliberations. For me it

hinges on how can a drunk or stoned person reasonable evaluate if his life

is in danger when his perception is legally impaired. We say it's illegal

to drive a car that could kill someone when impaired but don't question if

that impairment affects their decision to shoot someone. Eventually Florida

will refine its laws once enough of these cases occur.


Why waste everyone's time and money when the guy is already going
away for essentially life. Good grief.



The outstanding charge is really bad news for Dunn who could still be freed

if he wins at appeal. He could win on appeal but lose again on murder one

at a retrial. Frankly, I don't think he can win on appeal because the state

had some pretty big guns on the case.



He's got about a zero chance of winning on appeal. And if he does,
they can retry him on murder then. But if this jury couldn't convict,
there's no guarantee another one will either.





Can't wait to see what happens to the man who was lethally defending himself

against a popcorn attack. Apparently like Dunn couldn't find another

parking space, the gun made it impossible for the popcorn killer to find

another seat. That's the well-known downside of letting every warm body (it

seems) carry a weapon.

Shouting matches and fistfights now become

homicides - very expensive homicides.

But it was OK for you to carry one right? But not an ex-cop?
Hypocrite.



I can't imagine this will be cheap

for our fellow Floridians. Nor do imagine that these cases will stop as a

result of these two trials. The genie is out of the bottle.



What cases? How about all the similar cases in Detroit, Chicago
where people are getting shot every day. Oh, but you hardly hear
about them, because the lib media only wants to focus on certain
cases, especially if it's a white guy that shoots a black guy.
But black shoots white, no big story there. Black shoots black, no
big story there.

On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 07:46:43 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

Feds could come with a civil rights violation, which would not be

double jeopardy as it would be a court of a different jurisdiction.



Yes, and that's always been something that doesn't seem quite right.
You could be found not guilty of say murder and then, if you happen to
be the wrong color, the feds could come after you for a civil rights
violation. Sure sounds like double jeopardy there to me.

The Rodney King case was an infamous case of civil rights violation
convictions, the cops had been found not guilty for batting out of
turn. The Feds went after them for political reasons.

DJ does apply in a case where a crime is committed on federal
property. The state can bring charges, get a conviction and then the
Feds can also bring criminal charges because the crime took place on
federal property.

Military members are not free from DJ in cases where they crime was in
a community or even in another country. They can be charged under the
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) - a different set of laws from
our criminal laws or laws of another country.

"micky" wrote in message ...
On Sun, 16 Feb 2014 14:43:35 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Sun, 16 Feb 2014 14:25:44 -0500, micky
wrote:

First degree murder, premeditated murder does not require that one sit
in his room making plans weeks or days or hours in advance. it doesn't
require that someone make a special purchase of a weapon or that he plan
to meet someone somewhere. The intention and the premeditation
necessary for first degree murder can be formed one second before the
act is committed.

I'm not sure premeditation can be formed in "one second".

Without debating that one, how about 3 seconds. No more than that is
needed in many states.

One example someone gave on the radio today, from one state, was the
time between the first time one pulled the trigger and the second time,
and that means consecutive shots, without a pause in between.

Consider crimes of passion. Often acts that are instantaneous.

Occasions where premeditation is not found for one reason or anotehr
don't change the minimum time necessary when those reasons are not
present.

The Burning Bed Defense?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Burning_Bed

" Hughes went to court in Lansing, Michigan, and found by a jury of
her peers to be not guilty by reason of temporary insanity."

Maybe so in theory. I think the jury would have gone for voluntary manslaughter. When you get into FDM, every technicality gives the defense a way to derail the verdict. Got to convince 12 people.

On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 14:06:24 -0800, "Guv Bob"
wrote:

"micky" wrote in message ...
On Sun, 16 Feb 2014 14:43:35 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Sun, 16 Feb 2014 14:25:44 -0500, micky
wrote:

First degree murder, premeditated murder does not require that one sit
in his room making plans weeks or days or hours in advance. it doesn't
require that someone make a special purchase of a weapon or that he plan
to meet someone somewhere. The intention and the premeditation
necessary for first degree murder can be formed one second before the
act is committed.

I'm not sure premeditation can be formed in "one second".

Without debating that one, how about 3 seconds. No more than that is
needed in many states.

One example someone gave on the radio today, from one state, was the
time between the first time one pulled the trigger and the second time,
and that means consecutive shots, without a pause in between.

Consider crimes of passion. Often acts that are instantaneous.

Occasions where premeditation is not found for one reason or anotehr
don't change the minimum time necessary when those reasons are not
present.

The Burning Bed Defense?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Burning_Bed

" Hughes went to court in Lansing, Michigan, and found by a jury of
her peers to be not guilty by reason of temporary insanity."

Maybe so in theory. I think the jury would have gone for voluntary manslaughter. When you get into FDM, every technicality gives the defense a way to derail the verdict. Got to convince 12 people.

Only 6 jurors (and alternates) are required in Florida on a felony
criminal, except in a Death Penalty case - then 12 is required (an
alternates).

http://www.cobblawfirm.com/Jurors.htm

Pete C. wrote:

As to the shotgun -- testimony from his girlfriend revealed that
he Dunn never mentioned another weapon being involved.

He drove off to his motel, ordered a pizza, and slept off the
numerous drinks he had earlier that evening at a wedding reception.

How talkative are you when you've just had a traumatic experience and
are also still a bit drunk?

Had I just fired numerous shots into a car and got back into mine...
1) there is no way my wife wouldn't be asking me a million questions.
2) if there was only ONE question asked, it would be 'why did
you shoot at them?'.
3) the adrenaline after such an occurence would have one so pumped
up that remaining silent wouldn't even be an option.
4) he wasn't so drunk that he didn't leave a good shot pattern
on the other car... and certainly not so drunk that he didn't
make it back to the hotel and remain awake/alert enough to
order and eat a pizza. sidenote - having just now looked
back at her testimony, she says he had 3 or 4 drinks over the
course of the evening

In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message

They are talking about refiling the 1st degree charge. Since he was
already convicted, how is that not double jeopardy?

Hung jury on the one who was killed. The three attempted murder charges
covered the surviving three occupants. The jury did not acquit on murder
one or the lesser charges on the victim, they could not agree to a verdict.
Don't worry. Although the jury is mum for now, my J-prof assured me that 12
people can't keep a secret like that and so far he's been right. Someone
always talks.

Okay. Wasn't sure what happened to the lesser charge.



The outstanding charge is really bad news for Dunn who could still be freed
if he wins at appeal. He could win on appeal but lose again on murder one
at a retrial. Frankly, I don't think he can win on appeal because the state
had some pretty big guns on the case.
Yeah and big guns never misfire.


--
³Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital.²
‹ Aaron Levenstein

On Thu, 20 Feb 2014 20:00:17 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 20 Feb 2014 17:09:07 -0500, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

The outstanding charge is really bad news for Dunn who could still be freed
if he wins at appeal. He could win on appeal but lose again on murder one
at a retrial. Frankly, I don't think he can win on appeal because the state
had some pretty big guns on the case.
Yeah and big guns never misfire.

Dershowitz was on CNN saying Dunn has a fairly good chance of getting
the attempted murder charges tossed but firing into an occupied
vehicle will still hold up.
With the 10-20 life law, this may all be academic anyway. 20 or 25
years is still going to make him a very old man when he gets out of
jail.
Dershowitz also said the murder one beef was a huge mistake. With
murder 2 Angie only needed to convince 6 jurors, not 12.
It is still going to be 25 to life.

Firing the gun is what gets him the mandatory time. I very much doubt
that Corey will not seek that, at least or even waive it.

As you well know in Florida, "use a gun and you're done".

On 2/20/2014 7:26 PM, Oren wrote:
On Thu, 20 Feb 2014 20:00:17 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 20 Feb 2014 17:09:07 -0500, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

The outstanding charge is really bad news for Dunn who could
still be freed if he wins at appeal. He could win on appeal
but lose again on murder one at a retrial. Frankly, I don't
think he can win on appeal because the state had some pretty
big guns on the case.
Yeah and big guns never misfire.

Dershowitz was on CNN saying Dunn has a fairly good chance of
getting the attempted murder charges tossed but firing into an
occupied vehicle will still hold up. With the 10-20 life law, this
may all be academic anyway. 20 or 25 years is still going to make
him a very old man when he gets out of jail. Dershowitz also said
the murder one beef was a huge mistake. With murder 2 Angie only
needed to convince 6 jurors, not 12. It is still going to be 25 to
life.

Firing the gun is what gets him the mandatory time. I very much
doubt that Corey will not seek that, at least or even waive it.

As you well know in Florida, "use a gun and you're done".

But that's racist,...oh wait, it's being used against a White guy. O_o

TDD

On Thursday, February 20, 2014 10:39:53 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Thu, 20 Feb 2014 17:26:30 -0800, Oren wrote:



On Thu, 20 Feb 2014 20:00:17 -0500, wrote:



On Thu, 20 Feb 2014 17:09:07 -0500, Kurt Ullman

wrote:



The outstanding charge is really bad news for Dunn who could still be freed

if he wins at appeal. He could win on appeal but lose again on murder one

at a retrial. Frankly, I don't think he can win on appeal because the state

had some pretty big guns on the case.

Yeah and big guns never misfire.



Dershowitz was on CNN saying Dunn has a fairly good chance of getting

the attempted murder charges tossed but firing into an occupied

vehicle will still hold up.

With the 10-20 life law, this may all be academic anyway. 20 or 25

years is still going to make him a very old man when he gets out of

jail.

Dershowitz also said the murder one beef was a huge mistake. With

murder 2 Angie only needed to convince 6 jurors, not 12.

It is still going to be 25 to life.



Firing the gun is what gets him the mandatory time. I very much doubt

that Corey will not seek that, at least or even waive it.



As you well know in Florida, "use a gun and you're done".



After seeing her with the warning shot lady, I have no doubt she will

push the 10,20,25/life on any felony she can make stick.

That is why this could have been a slam dunk if she wasn't

showboating.

It still looks like a slam dunk to me, if you want what I think
most people would consider justice, as it's applied around most
of the USA. Kind of funny. I've moved more in your direction,
after learning the details of the 10/20 law. From what I see, he
has a min of 20 years on just using a gun and firing it. IMO,
that sentence alone is about right compared to what is handed out
in similar circumstances for an actual murder like what happened
and he was not convicted of murder at all. If someone get into
an argument, winds up killing a spouse or someone on the street,
not unusual for 20 years to be the total sentence, assuming they
have no priors, there was no underlying planned crime, eg robbery,
etc.

In this case, you have at least 20 plus whatever he gets sentenced
to for the attempted murder charges for firing into the car. That
could easily be 20 more. What this guy did was bad and could have
been avoided. But for a spur of the moment, stupid thing that a
guy with no priors did, how much do you want? What's next, the
death penalty?

And IMO, the whole system of law and it's administration there needs
to be looked at. That crazy sentence of 20 years for the black lady
who fired a warning shot is just nuts. It's worse than NYC, where anyone
caught with an illegal gun has a mandatory 3 year sentence. So, you
have some 80 year old WWII vet, no record, someone breaks into his
house, he shoots them, and now he faces 3 years because he had an
old revolver in his house? It's also snagged
folks who legally checked their guns with airlines flying from say
FL to Maine to go hunting. Because of weather, they miss their
connection at JFK and have to stay overnight. The airline gives
them their luggage back and they go off to a hotel, never thinking
that their legal gun, unloaded, inside a gun case, inside their
luggage is a problem. Next day they go back to the airport, walk up
to check in, present the gun as required, and the airline calls the
cops and off to jail they go.

wrote:

With a hung jury the prosecution can retry as many times as they
want to try. DJ only applies if they are found guilty.

Double jeopardy is when you've been found innocent.
Once found innocent of a crime, you cannot be later
charged with that same crime.

Feds could come with a civil rights violation, which would not be
double jeopardy as it would be a court of a different jurisdiction.

It would have to be a different charge entirely. If he is found innocent
of say murder, he cannot be charged again for that murder. Feds
may try to step in and say there is a civil rights violation, but they
cannot prosecute him for the crime of murder. OJ was found
guilty in a civil court after his state prosecution whose primary
function is to compensate for losses incurred.

Yes, and that's always been something that doesn't seem quite right.
You could be found not guilty of say murder and then, if you happen to
be the wrong color, the feds could come after you for a civil rights
violation. Sure sounds like double jeopardy there to me.

The OJ example addresses this. Criminal proceedings are meant
to be punitive.... civil cases are to address loss/compensation.

On Monday, February 24, 2014 5:12:32 PM UTC-5, 83LowRider wrote:
wrote:



With a hung jury the prosecution can retry as many times as they

want to try. DJ only applies if they are found guilty.



Double jeopardy is when you've been found innocent.


I meant to say "DJ only applies if they are found "not guilty".



Once found innocent of a crime, you cannot be later

charged with that same crime.



Feds could come with a civil rights violation, which would not be

double jeopardy as it would be a court of a different jurisdiction.



It would have to be a different charge entirely.

That isn't exactly true. If a crime exists at both the federal
and state level, they can in fact try you separately for both,
even after you've been acquitted of one.





If he is found innocent

of say murder, he cannot be charged again for that murder. Feds

may try to step in and say there is a civil rights violation, but they

cannot prosecute him for the crime of murder.

In reality, they technically can try someone for the same thing if
there is both a federal and a state law. It's just that DOJ practice
over the years has been to not do that, unless exceptional circumstances
exist. That is rarely done. But it's more common for the feds to do
as you cite, bring a charge after someone is acquitted of a state crime
for a federal civil rights violation. A case they never would have brought
had the person been convicted. But they only
do that selectively as well, depending apparently mostly on your color.
And as I said, it appears pretty close to violating double jeopardy to
me. Anytime you kill someone, you're obviously violating their civil
rights.



OJ was found

guilty in a civil court after his state prosecution whose primary

function is to compensate for losses incurred.



Yes, and that's always been something that doesn't seem quite right.

You could be found not guilty of say murder and then, if you happen to

be the wrong color, the feds could come after you for a civil rights

violation. Sure sounds like double jeopardy there to me.



The OJ example addresses this. Criminal proceedings are meant

to be punitive.... civil cases are to address loss/compensation.

We're talking criminal cases here, not civil.

On Mon, 24 Feb 2014 17:12:32 -0500, "83LowRider"
wrote:

With a hung jury the prosecution can retry as many times as they
want to try. DJ only applies if they are found guilty.

Double jeopardy is when you've been found innocent.
Once found innocent of a crime, you cannot be later
charged with that same crime.

Might better check that. State and Federal law; coupled with "dual
jurisdiction".

Innocent in a state does not prevent the feds from taking action IF
the crime is on a federal reservation / property.

Normally, the LEO agencies will determine who prosecutes. It can
happen is both jurisdictions.

wrote:

DJ only applies if they are found guilty.

Double jeopardy is when you've been found innocent.

I meant to say "DJ only applies if they are found "not guilty".

Figured that, but wanted to clarify.


It would have to be a different charge entirely.

That isn't exactly true. If a crime exists at both the federal
and state level, they can in fact try you separately for both,
even after you've been acquitted of one.

I'd need to see some examples of that. Not saying it couldn't
happen, but a lawyer would have a field day with it.

In reality, they technically can try someone for the same thing if
there is both a federal and a state law.
It's just that DOJ practice
over the years has been to not do that, unless exceptional
circumstances exist. That is rarely done.

Again, this may be, but I'm unaware of it happening.

But it's more common for the feds to do
as you cite, bring a charge after someone is acquitted of a state
crime for a federal civil rights violation. A case they never would
have brought had the person been convicted. But they only
do that selectively as well, depending apparently mostly on your
color. And as I said, it appears pretty close to violating double
jeopardy to me. Anytime you kill someone, you're obviously violating
their civil rights.

We're talking criminal cases here, not civil.

Understood... but because of double jeopardy laws it
is often a means of last resort to take it to a civil court.

Oren wrote:

Double jeopardy is when you've been found innocent.
Once found innocent of a crime, you cannot be later
charged with that same crime.

Might better check that. State and Federal law; coupled with "dual
jurisdiction".

Innocent in a state does not prevent the feds from taking action IF
the crime is on a federal reservation / property.

Normally, the LEO agencies will determine who prosecutes. It can
happen is both jurisdictions.

I realize there are exceptions for every rule, but DJ exists for a
reason. I do not know of a single case doesn't mean there isn't
one where a person has been found innocent of a specific crime,
only to be charged again with that same exact crime.

In article ,
"83LowRider" wrote:

wrote:

DJ only applies if they are found guilty.

Double jeopardy is when you've been found innocent.

I meant to say "DJ only applies if they are found "not guilty".

Figured that, but wanted to clarify.


It would have to be a different charge entirely.

That isn't exactly true. If a crime exists at both the federal
and state level, they can in fact try you separately for both,
even after you've been acquitted of one.

I'd need to see some examples of that. Not saying it couldn't
happen, but a lawyer would have a field day with it.

From Wikipedia, but in this case, it is actually right (grin)
In Blockburger v. United States (1932), the Supreme Court announced the
following test: the government may separately try and punish the
defendant for two crimes if each crime contains an element that the
other does not.[66] An example of this is the successful prosecution
under 18 U.S.C. § 242 (deprivation of rights under color of law) of some
of the Los Angeles police officers involved in the Rodney King beating
after their acquittal in California state court on charges of assault
with a deadly weapon and excessive use of force by a police officer.[67]
Blockburger is the default rule, unless the governing statute
legislatively intends to depart; for example, Continuing Criminal
Enterprise (CCE) may be punished separately from its predicates,[68] as
can conspiracy.[69]
The Blockburger test, originally developed in the multiple punishments
context, is also the test for prosecution after conviction.[70] In Grady
v. Corbin (1990), the Court held that a double jeopardy violation could
lie even where the Blockburger test was not satisfied,[71] but Grady was
overruled in United States v. Dixon (1993).[72]
--
³Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital.²
‹ Aaron Levenstein

On Tue, 25 Feb 2014 15:03:01 -0500, "83LowRider"
wrote:

Oren wrote:

Double jeopardy is when you've been found innocent.
Once found innocent of a crime, you cannot be later
charged with that same crime.

Might better check that. State and Federal law; coupled with "dual
jurisdiction".

Innocent in a state does not prevent the feds from taking action IF
the crime is on a federal reservation / property.

Normally, the LEO agencies will determine who prosecutes. It can
happen is both jurisdictions.

I realize there are exceptions for every rule, but DJ exists for a
reason. I do not know of a single case doesn't mean there isn't
one where a person has been found innocent of a specific crime,
only to be charged again with that same exact crime.


We are getting into the tall grass. I'm getting lost.

"Innocent" is not a verdict rendered by a jury in a court of
jurisdiction. The verdict is "not guilty" or "guilty".

A state DA can make the choice to not charge you, same with the Feds.
You can still be sued under federal law. An example; alleged crime, is
"brutality" _under color of law_. The state does not charge, feds do
not charge, but the brutality violation can be brought by the
defendant making the allegation - using Civil Rights violations.

I was sued for brutality once but never charged criminally by the
state or the feds. The defendant dropped his case because he was
****ing up a rope. There was nothing brutal, in the tune-up
adjustment he received.

Keep in mind that elements of a state or federal crime can vary. Those
elements allow one to be tried for the same incident (crime) by using
a different element under the laws - both state or fed.

Are we confused yet ...G

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message news:1u-

Double jeopardy is when the value of the questions are doubled. Happens
every weekday night at 7:15 or so. (arf, arf)

The only real question is how many times they're going to retry Dunn for
murder one. I've never seen the prosecution go more than three times on any
case, but I have seen them go for a third retrial a number of times, often
securing a conviction on the third go-round. Each retrial, especially if
the jurors detail why they were hung, gives the prosecution lots of pointers
about how they can perfect their case to secure a conviction. Although OJ's
eventual loss at trial was civil and not criminal, it's clear by the time
the civil trial occurred that the plaintiffs had learned a lot about how to
present the case against him from what the criminal jurors had said.

Many times what happens is by the second or third retrial, the defendant
enters a plea. Regrettably the system is somewhat biased against defendants
because of the cost of good legal representation. A third (or even second)
retrial often equals bankruptcy for many defendants (sometimes the initial
trial does that - Zimmerman owes millions on his case, IIRC). By the time a
retrial is underway, defendants many times end up with less than stellar
counsel.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/mistrial

A courtroom trial that has been terminated prior to its normal conclusion. A
mistrial has no legal effect and is considered an invalid or nugatory trial.
It differs from a "new trial," which recognizes that a trial was completed
but was set aside so that the issues could be tried again.

Nugatory, for the record, doesn't mean caramel covered or related to Ted
Nugent:

from Latin nugatorius "worthless, trifling, futile," from nugator "jester,
trifler, braggart"

We clearly have a number of nugators in AHR. But I digress . . .

Usually, if a jury is deadlocked by just one or two jurors, a retrial is
almost certain to follow, and perhaps more than one. It's only in cases
where there are a considerable number of jurors voting to acquit that
prosecutors shy away from retrials. Murder one cases are probably an
exception to that rule, at least for a second a trial. The state of
Florida will almost certainly retry Dunn because he may be successful in
overturning the first convictions on attempted murder and they clearly don't
want him walking away without any consequences.

I have to wonder if Dunn and the Popcorn Killer were aware of how draconian
the Florida laws are concerning the use of a gun in a felony. I wasn't.
One good thing that came out of these killings is that people are more aware
of the possible consequences of discharging a weapon and may exercise
greater discretion when assaulted by loud music or popcorn in the future.

These cases also drive home why my instructors for my CCW license of over 30
years ago (a different world, really) kept emphasizing "Your CCW permit is
for SELF DEFENSE. You have NO police powers and using the gun for anything
short of preventing IMMEDIATE loss of life will get you into serious
trouble."

It's becoming very clear that at least some people with CCWs start to think
they are empowered to correct society's ills, like loud music, texting
during movies, etc. I had the same experience. I had seen a father knock
his kid to the ground in McDonald's and was ready to make a citizen's
arrest. But fortunately my training said "Call the cops - it's a police
matter." But my guts really wanted to knock that guy to the ground and then
to stand on him. (-:

It's a peculiar form of "mission creep" and it happens to a lot of people.
Do you think Dunn would have approached a car full of loud teenagers
unarmed? Combine the "mission creep" effect with liquid courage and trouble
is often the outcome. I wouldn't be surprised if a psych exam of the
Popcorn Killer reveals a substantial mental defect, probably some sort of
senile dementia.

--
Bobby G.

In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:

The only real question is how many times they're going to retry Dunn for
murder one. I've never seen the prosecution go more than three times on any
case, but I have seen them go for a third retrial a number of times, often
securing a conviction on the third go-round. Each retrial, especially if
the jurors detail why they were hung, gives the prosecution lots of pointers
about how they can perfect their case to secure a conviction. Although OJ's
eventual loss at trial was civil and not criminal, it's clear by the time
the civil trial occurred that the plaintiffs had learned a lot about how to
present the case against him from what the criminal jurors had said.
Or that the attorneys were actually competent. OJ was lost when the
idiots actually allowed him to try on glove. They got exactly what they
deserved.



A courtroom trial that has been terminated prior to its normal conclusion. A
mistrial has no legal effect and is considered an invalid or nugatory trial.
It differs from a "new trial," which recognizes that a trial was completed
but was set aside so that the issues could be tried again.
There are some rare times where mistrial can attach jeopardy, but
usually requires some rather nasty prosecutorial idiocy.



Nugatory, for the record, doesn't mean caramel covered or related to Ted
Nugent:


And here I always thought that was CB for "no".


Usually, if a jury is deadlocked by just one or two jurors, a retrial is
almost certain to follow, and perhaps more than one. It's only in cases
where there are a considerable number of jurors voting to acquit that
prosecutors shy away from retrials. Murder one cases are probably an
exception to that rule, at least for a second a trial. The state of
Florida will almost certainly retry Dunn because he may be successful in
overturning the first convictions on attempted murder and they clearly don't
want him walking away without any consequences.
Lost interest before the jury started talking. What was the vote if
known.


--
³Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital.²
‹ Aaron Levenstein

Oren posted for all of us...

And I know how to SNIP

Are we confused yet ...G


About most things YES!

--
Tekkie

Oren wrote:

I realize there are exceptions for every rule, but DJ exists for a
reason. I do not know of a single case doesn't mean there isn't
one where a person has been found innocent of a specific crime,
only to be charged again with that same exact crime.


We are getting into the tall grass. I'm getting lost.

"Innocent" is not a verdict rendered by a jury in a court of
jurisdiction. The verdict is "not guilty" or "guilty".

Yer pickin' nits here... but yes, you're technically correct.

in·no·cent
adjective: innocent

1. not guilty of a crime or offense.

antonyms: guilty

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
m...
In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:

The only real question is how many times they're going to retry Dunn for
murder one. I've never seen the prosecution go more than three times on
any
case, but I have seen them go for a third retrial a number of times,
often
securing a conviction on the third go-round. Each retrial, especially
if
the jurors detail why they were hung, gives the prosecution lots of
pointers
about how they can perfect their case to secure a conviction. Although
OJ's
eventual loss at trial was civil and not criminal, it's clear by the
time
the civil trial occurred that the plaintiffs had learned a lot about how
to
present the case against him from what the criminal jurors had said.

Or that the attorneys were actually competent. OJ was lost when the
idiots actually allowed him to try on glove. They got exactly what they
deserved.

That just proves what I was saying. They didn't do any blood-soaked glove
modeling for the civil jury. By that time, they had learned it was not a
good move. The glove was one of many "screw the pooch" moments. Ah, so
many. I think it was a perfect example of the state, which usually has a
tremendous resource advantage at trial (against most defendants) finding
that $10M+ simply buys mo' better resources for the defense. Look at how
long Phil Spector's $$$$ kept justice at bay and he basically fugging
confessed the night of the murder!!!!!!

Whatever happened to Phil? Let's see what Google says:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...fe-father.html

Nothing good.

A courtroom trial that has been terminated prior to its normal
conclusion. A
mistrial has no legal effect and is considered an invalid or nugatory
trial.
It differs from a "new trial," which recognizes that a trial was
completed
but was set aside so that the issues could be tried again.

There are some rare times where mistrial can attach jeopardy, but
usually requires some rather nasty prosecutorial idiocy.

Agreed. There have been many cases where the prosecutors tried a stunt like
the glove fiasco and actually *realized* they have screwed the pooch and
contaminated the jury. They then do something unrelated to cause a mistrial
hoping their true motives won't be noticed. They hope that they'll get a
"second bite of the apple" and a new jury that hasn't seen their gross
incompetence.

For Clark/Darden, their massive errors was:

a) was not realizing that wet leather gloves stiffen and shrink and
b) forgetting that OJ was a SAG card carrying actor that could do the
reverse "Cinderella and the Glass Slipper" routine in his sleep. It shows,
I think, that many lawyers were not school science project winners. Maybe
it was that Californians don't have the wet leather glove experiences that
most cold climate Americans learn by ruining leather gloves in wet snow.
That was a truly inexplicable event to me.

I was actually sickened by the stupidity of the prosecution in allowing that
"test" to proceed and having to watch OJ "struggle" so hard to try to get
those gloves on. The tragedy is that I don't think they realized how badly
that demo hurt them until after the verdict. Just plain ol' bad lawyering.
No shortage of that in the world.

Appellate courts in general don't tolerate that kind of behavior from either
side (and both sides have done it). If the prosecutor tries it, the risk is
that jeopardy will attach and a retrial will be barred. If the defense
tries it, they defendant gets to pay his lawyers to start all over again
from the beginning. Jeopardy can attach very early in the proceedings:

Jeopardy attaches in jury trial when the jury is empaneled and sworn in,
in a bench trial when the court begins to hear evidence after the first
witness is sworn in, or when a court accepts a defendant's plea
unconditionally.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Jeopardy_Clause

I find it odd that it attaches in a bench trial after the actual hearing of
evidence whereas a jury trial merely requires the swearing in of a jury.

(My advice is that if you have $$$$, NEVER take a plea. So many escape
hatches close when you cop a plea it's only for the poor, the easily
intimidated and the very, VERY guilty.)

Nugatory, for the record, doesn't mean caramel covered or related to Ted
Nugent:


And here I always thought that was CB for "no".

(-: It took me a few seconds to get that reference, good buddy. When I was
still into CB, Lafayette Radio was still in business. Still have a few
giant CB hand-held and battery pack units. Is it still popular now that
everyone has cell phones?

Usually, if a jury is deadlocked by just one or two jurors, a retrial is
almost certain to follow, and perhaps more than one. It's only in cases
where there are a considerable number of jurors voting to acquit that
prosecutors shy away from retrials. Murder one cases are probably an
exception to that rule, at least for a second a trial. The state of
Florida will almost certainly retry Dunn because he may be successful in
overturning the first convictions on attempted murder and they clearly
don't
want him walking away without any consequences.

Lost interest before the jury started talking. What was the vote if
known.

The ratio usually determines if they'll go for retrial, especially multiple
retrials. Think of AHR. Try to name 12 members who would agree on
everything presented to them. The question is "was the verdict the result
of reasonable doubt or just a single, cranky holdout torturing the group for
giggles?"

Somewhere in my reading the balance point on retrials with hung juries is
between having a quarter to a third voting to acquit - in other words a
clear majority for a guilty verdict. Sometimes, out of what is loosely
termed "public necessity" they will retry a defendant even though more than
1/3 voted to acquit if the jurors thought he was innocent. Those cases are
trials with a lot of public attention focused on them, like Dunn's. In fact,
even after several retrials, if there's a strong sense of a need to hold
someone accountable, and juries have repeatedly hung, in come the Feds with
a host of different charges, just different enough not to trigger double
jeopardy.

Prosecutors almost always believe they can do better the second time around,
and mostly, they're right. That's because invariably someone like you tells
them "drop the idiotic glove bit on round two" and they do. The prosecutors
in Fla. will be analyzing every word the jurors say to anyone for clues that
would help them avoid a second mistrial on murder one.

Sometimes it's very easy - a juror will say "I didn't like the way the
prosecutor badgered him on the stand" or something similar. Sometimes the
jurors themselves don't know why they voted the way they did. On at least
one occasion a juror voted to convict because he wanted to get home to watch
a football game.

The worst thing that could have happened to OJ after the glove demo was for
the defense to cause a mistrial because I doubt Clark would have been
allowed by Garcetti to repeat that glove stupidity (or been allowed to
change her hairstyle mid-trial, which seemed to vastly upset scores of trial
watchers at least as much as the glove). Gotta love American Justice. (-:

--
Bobby G.