Wednesday, October 1, 2014
Good morning:
Judge Healey has completed reading the jury instructions to the jury in the Michael Dunn retrial and the jury deliberations are underway in the jury room.
As we wait for them to reach a verdict, I recommend readers watch John Guy’s excellent rebuttal argument. For example, he absolutely destroys Michael Knox, the defense forensic expert and dismisses him stating, “That’s what you get for $350 per hour.
While you are listening to him, notice that he uses circumstantial evidence to construct a powerful argument that Dunn lied. For comparison purposes, recall that Judge Masipa in the Pistorius case regarded circumstantial evidence as not very reliable or persuasive.
I think it’s appropriate to instruct juries that evidence may be either direct or circumstantial. One is not necessarily more accurate or reliable than the other and it’s up to the jury to decide how much weight to assign to the evidence admitted in the case.
The instructions direct the jurors to consider first degree murder first and not to consider lesser included offenses like second degree murder or manslaughter unless they cannot unanimously agree on a verdict to first degree murder.
First degree requires proof of premeditation. Premeditation requires proof that the defendant specifically intended to kill Jordan Davis; that he reflected on his decision to kill; and that decided to go ahead and do it.
Premeditation (i.e., specific intent to kill, reflection and affirmation) does not require anything more than a moment in time.
What do you think of John Guy’s rebuttal argument?
Do you believe circumstantial evidence is inherently less accurate and reliable than direct evidence?
Do you believe Michael Dunn acted with premeditation?
Do you believe he acted in self-defense?
What did you think of Michael Knox?
