Page 10 of 36 FirstFirst ... 8910111220 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 355

Thread: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial[W:336]

  1. #91
    On Vacation
    joko104's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    12-03-17 @ 03:32 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    31,568
    Blog Entries
    2

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

    The ruling is bizarre and indicates the jury did exactly what they are not suppose to do - compromise. There is NO rationale by which he is guilty of attempted murder on 3 not killed, but in disagreement over the one he did. It means the jury decided they just wanted to go home and agreed on a middle ground. Either he meant to kill someone or not. While some will be glad he was convicted on anything, it is bizarre.

    I also think it would poise a double jeopardy to retry him on one charge.

    This also is an example of a lazy defense attorney. The defense should have insisted on a separate trial for each charge - which the defense can do and didn't. Now the prosecutor can take the 4 hung-jury and present it as fact that he attempted to kill the other three since there is a jury finding to that effect.

  2. #92
    Sage
    Excon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    10-14-17 @ 01:26 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,997

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

    Quote Originally Posted by MaggieD View Post
    Since he was convicted of attempted murder, that makes no sense. Since it took so long for a verdict, I was suspecting nullification by one or more jurists. I don't think that happened . . . or it would have been a hung jury on all counts.
    And again, back to the original point about jury instruction.
    They were not given proper instruction on self defense and had to compartmentalize.
    As it is obvious that he was not firing at the other three in self defense as they did not provoke such a response as Davis did, they had no option but to return a verdict of guilt.


    Quote Originally Posted by MaggieD View Post
    Apparently you don't understand an affirmative defense.
    That would be you.
    The defense made their required showing to generate the self defense instruction. That was their burden, and then met it.
    Keep that in mind when you reads the following. They met their burden of showing/production as the instruction was generated.


    UNDERSTANDING AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

    Code:
    UNDERSTANDING AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
    
    David Beneman
    Maine CJA Resource Counsel
    Levenson, Vickerson & Beneman
    P.O. Box 465
    Portland, ME 04112
    ...
    
    I. Legal Groundwork For Affirmative Defenses
    
    A. What is an Affirmative Defense?
    
    An affirmative defense is one which provides a defense without negating an essential
    element of the crime charge. To establish an affirmative defense the defendant must place
    before the jury sufficient proof to generate a jury instruction on the particular defense theory
    sought. Normally, an affirmative defense is expressly designated as affirmative by statute,
    or is a defense involving an excuse or justification peculiarly within the knowledge of the
    accused.
    
    B.  How is an Affirmative Defense different from a “Regular” Defense?
    
    An affirmative defense is one which requires the actual production of evidence, be
    it testimonial or physical. The evidence can be adduced through cross examination of
    Government witnesses or produced after the close of the Government’s case in chief.
    Affirmative defenses do not directly attack an element of the crime but provide either
    justification for the conduct or some other legally recognized approach to undermining the
    charge. A defendant must generate an affirmative defense instruction.
    
    
    C. Types of Defenses
    
    There are two categories of defense.
    1. I did not do it defenses, and
    2. I did it but defenses.
    Affirmative defenses are available in both categories.
    
    
    [...]
    
    
    D. Burdens
    The term “affirmative defense” seems inextricably tied to arguments about burden shifting.
    Three different burdens exist; 
    
    burden of proof (always on the government), burden of production (normally on the defense), and burden of persuasion (normally back on the government).
    The burden of proof to prove the essential elements of the crime charged BRD starts with and ALWAYS stays with the Government. The burden of production to generate an affirmative defense is on the defense. This is constitutional because the defense is not negating an essential element of the crime charged. The standard, meaning the quantum of evidence needed, varies with the particular affirmative defense. Generally it is either by a preponderance, or by clear and convincing. Once the defense has met this burden of producing an affirmative defense, the Government has the additional burden of persuading the jury not just as to each element of the crime BRD, but also to persuade the jury to reject the affirmative defense BRD as well.
    I. Burden of Proof Presenting an affirmative defense offers no relief to the government in what they must prove. Patterson v. New York, 432 U.S. 197 (1977). Rather, if the defense generates an affirmative defense, the government must then disprove the defense generally beyond a reasonable doubt. Mullaney, 421 U.S. at 704; U.S. v. Jackson, 569 F.2d 1003, 1008 n.12 (7th Cir. 1978)(emphasis added).
    Source



    Quote Originally Posted by MaggieD View Post
    We are judged by the totality of our actions. His defense team asked the jury to believe that what was going on in his head was a fight for his life. The fact that he did a very unnatural thing, left the scene, didn't call the cops, is as fair to consider as his state of mind.
    Not sticking around a hostile environment is a very natural thing.


    Quote Originally Posted by MaggieD View Post
    His explanation of why he left the scene isn't believable. But a high BAC would explain in. Nothing else does.
    Wrong.
    While that is what you believe, his explanation is perfectly acceptable and understandable.
    BAC? There is no such evidence to even consider. That is nothing more than speculation on your part.


    Quote Originally Posted by MaggieD View Post
    She's a train wreck because . . . ?
    Some people are more emotional than some.
    The mere fact of being charged is enough to start the water works.


    Quote Originally Posted by MaggieD View Post
    You'll get no apology from me.
    Did I ask for one? No I didn't, nor does it excuse your getting personal like that.


    Quote Originally Posted by MaggieD View Post
    The jury found him guilty. In a poll taken on this site, 31 of 33 people thought he was guilty.
    A poll at this site? OMG! I am mortified. iLOL
    You realize how silly you sighting a poll in this sight sounds, right? Probably not. So never-mind the question.


    Quote Originally Posted by MaggieD View Post
    Ex thinks all someone has to say is, "I thought I saw a gun," and the prosecution has to disprove it. And if they can't? He walks. Well, the rest of the world disagrees with you.
    No MaggieD. It isn't that simple. So you can stop misrepresenting any time now.
    “The law is reason, free from passion.”
    Aristotle
    (≚ᄌ≚)

  3. #93
    Professor
    Leo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 02:14 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,674

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Dezaad View Post
    I think you are right about them not having to tell the court. I was not well informed. However, I still believe the law should be changed. It should never be ok to deceive the court, and an attorney who has been told outright that "I shot the bastard" shouldn't be allowed to attempt to convince a jury that their client didn't. What purpose is served by allowing an attorney to deliberately deceive?
    I cannot comment upon the laws which prevail in the various US jurisdictions, but under British Law your earlier statements were, in effect, correct.

    A Barrister who is informed of guilt by his potential client has the duty to either refuse representation (and become a potential witness against the client) or to inform the court of his client's admitted guilt, while advising that client to make a guilty plea in the hope of a lesser sentence. He may not, at the risk of being disbarred, represent a client whom he knows to be guilty, as anything otherwise. A Barrister may also withdraw from a case where he feels ‘the administration of justice might be or appear to be prejudiced’.

    So you see, we 'serfs and subjects' (as some Americans are wont to describe us) do some things rather better.

    But the pachyderm in the chamber which everyone is ignoring - and which someone needs to mention (at the risk of the storm of vituperation such mention will doubtless bring,) - is the fact that none of this would have happened, and a 16 year old would be alive today, had Dunn not been allowed to carry a hand gun.
    I hate the idea of causes, and if I had to choose between betraying my country and betraying my friend, I hope I should have the guts to betray my country. E.M. Forster

  4. #94
    Sage


    MaggieD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Chicago Area
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    43,243
    Blog Entries
    43

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Excon View Post
    And again, back to the original point about jury instruction.
    They were not given proper instruction on self defense and had to compartmentalize.
    As it is obvious that he was not firing at the other three in self defense as they did not provoke such a response as Davis did, they had no option but to return a verdict of guilt.


    That would be you.
    The defense made their required showing to generate the self defense instruction. That was their burden, and then met it.
    Keep that in mind when you reads the following. They met their burden of showing/production as the instruction was generated.


    UNDERSTANDING AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

    Code:
    UNDERSTANDING AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
    
    David Beneman
    Maine CJA Resource Counsel
    Levenson, Vickerson & Beneman
    P.O. Box 465
    Portland, ME 04112
    ...
    
    I. Legal Groundwork For Affirmative Defenses
    
    A. What is an Affirmative Defense?
    
    An affirmative defense is one which provides a defense without negating an essential
    element of the crime charge. To establish an affirmative defense the defendant must place
    before the jury sufficient proof to generate a jury instruction on the particular defense theory
    sought. Normally, an affirmative defense is expressly designated as affirmative by statute,
    or is a defense involving an excuse or justification peculiarly within the knowledge of the
    accused.
    
    B.  How is an Affirmative Defense different from a “Regular” Defense?
    
    An affirmative defense is one which requires the actual production of evidence, be
    it testimonial or physical. The evidence can be adduced through cross examination of
    Government witnesses or produced after the close of the Government’s case in chief.
    Affirmative defenses do not directly attack an element of the crime but provide either
    justification for the conduct or some other legally recognized approach to undermining the
    charge. A defendant must generate an affirmative defense instruction.
    
    
    C. Types of Defenses
    
    There are two categories of defense.
    1. I did not do it defenses, and
    2. I did it but defenses.
    Affirmative defenses are available in both categories.
    
    
    [...]
    
    
    D. Burdens
    The term “affirmative defense” seems inextricably tied to arguments about burden shifting.
    Three different burdens exist; 
    
    burden of proof (always on the government), burden of production (normally on the defense), and burden of persuasion (normally back on the government).
    The burden of proof to prove the essential elements of the crime charged BRD starts with and ALWAYS stays with the Government. The burden of production to generate an affirmative defense is on the defense. This is constitutional because the defense is not negating an essential element of the crime charged. The standard, meaning the quantum of evidence needed, varies with the particular affirmative defense. Generally it is either by a preponderance, or by clear and convincing. Once the defense has met this burden of producing an affirmative defense, the Government has the additional burden of persuading the jury not just as to each element of the crime BRD, but also to persuade the jury to reject the affirmative defense BRD as well.
    I. Burden of Proof Presenting an affirmative defense offers no relief to the government in what they must prove. Patterson v. New York, 432 U.S. 197 (1977). Rather, if the defense generates an affirmative defense, the government must then disprove the defense generally beyond a reasonable doubt. Mullaney, 421 U.S. at 704; U.S. v. Jackson, 569 F.2d 1003, 1008 n.12 (7th Cir. 1978)(emphasis added).
    Source

    Not sticking around a hostile environment is a very natural thing.

    Wrong.
    While that is what you believe, his explanation is perfectly acceptable and understandable.
    BAC? There is no such evidence to even consider. That is nothing more than speculation on your part.


    Some people are more emotional than some.
    The mere fact of being charged is enough to start the water works.

    Did I ask for one? No I didn't, nor does it excuse your getting personal like that.

    A poll at this site? OMG! I am mortified. iLOL
    You realize how silly you sighting a poll in this sight sounds, right? Probably not. So never-mind the question.

    No MaggieD. It isn't that simple. So you can stop misrepresenting any time now.
    I'll let you argue with someone else now. You and I will never agree on this issue. I'm glad you're wrong.

  5. #95
    Sage
    Excon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    10-14-17 @ 01:26 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,997

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

    Quote Originally Posted by molten_dragon View Post
    No, it wouldn't. The key section of the Florida self defense law is this (emphasis mine):
    See you are skipping over the premise of what was said.
    If he is later found not guilty, the current charges can not stand, as that limited shooting at the vehicle as it pulls away is part and parcel of him defending himself.


    Quote Originally Posted by molten_dragon View Post
    It is not reasonable to believe that a car which you've already fired into several times and is now driving away from you is a threat which needs to be met with deadly force. No sane person would find that reasonable.
    Wrong. This was already explained.
    Shooting at the vehicle as it started to move away the very limited distance it did, is part and parcel of that, as he had no idea because of the tint if the guy was going to start shooting back.
    “The law is reason, free from passion.”
    Aristotle
    (≚ᄌ≚)

  6. #96
    Sage
    Excon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    10-14-17 @ 01:26 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,997

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

    Quote Originally Posted by MaggieD View Post
    I'll let you argue with someone else now. You and I will never agree on this issue. I'm glad you're wrong.
    You are the one who is wrong MaggieD.
    “The law is reason, free from passion.”
    Aristotle
    (≚ᄌ≚)

  7. #97
    Sage


    MaggieD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Chicago Area
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    43,243
    Blog Entries
    43

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Excon View Post
    You are the one who is wrong MaggieD.
    Me, the jury and the state of Florida. Gotcha.

  8. #98
    Sage
    Excon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    10-14-17 @ 01:26 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,997

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

    Quote Originally Posted by MaggieD View Post
    Me, the jury and the state of Florida. Gotcha.
    Wrong again. The Jury did not reach a conclusion in regards to what we are discussing. Which is the murder charge.
    “The law is reason, free from passion.”
    Aristotle
    (≚ᄌ≚)

  9. #99
    Anti-Hypocrite
    molten_dragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Southeast Michigan
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    9,351

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Excon View Post
    See you are skipping over the premise of what was said.
    If he is later found not guilty, the current charges can not stand, as that limited shooting at the vehicle as it pulls away is part and parcel of him defending himself.


    Wrong. This was already explained.
    Shooting at the vehicle as it started to move away the very limited distance it did, is part and parcel of that, as he had no idea because of the tint if the guy was going to start shooting back.
    I'll simply reiterate what I said before, no sane person would find that reasonable.
    If you build a man a fire, he'll be warm for a day.

    If you set a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

  10. #100
    Sage
    Excon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    10-14-17 @ 01:26 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,997

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

    Quote Originally Posted by molten_dragon View Post
    I'll simply reiterate what I said before, no sane person would find that reasonable.
    And you are wrong there as well.
    Lets see?
    Guy is screaming obscenities at you and verbally threatens your life.
    Guy presents object (seen as a shotgun barrel) intended to present threat as real.
    Guy then says it is going down now and starts getting out of the vehicle to carry through with said threat.

    The person being threatened with imminent death is not required to flee, and he is not required to be harmed first before responding to such an imminent threat.
    Responding with deadly force is reasonable under such circumstances.
    So you are just wrong.

    It all boils down to belief of what he said.
    The prosecution did not disprove his account as evidenced by the Jury not make a decision in regards to it.
    “The law is reason, free from passion.”
    Aristotle
    (≚ᄌ≚)

Page 10 of 36 FirstFirst ... 8910111220 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •