Aloha_Shooter
02-17-2015, 16:27
http://legalinsurrection.com/2015/02/dunn-juror-doubles-down-on-premeditation-standard/
What particularly caught my eye from this interview was the considerable weight the jurors placed on the many physical steps Michael Dunn took in retrieving, preparing, and brandishing his handgun, and how the jury concluded as a result that Dunn acted with premeditation. This finding of premeditation was necessary in order for the jury to unanimously find Dunn guilty of first-degree murder, as opposed to second-degree murder or manslaughter.
As Wayne Davis, jury foreman, put it in the interview:
We got instructions from the judge on what premeditation was, and we included, in some of the other ones, we never knew there was no time limit on premeditation, it can be three weeks or it can be three seconds. And from that, from the judges instructions, how to determine it was premeditated murder. . . . From the judge’s instructions of what premeditation was, it really came down to the all the steps he had to take to get to the gun, turn around and shoot that gun.
I leave for after-class discussion whether this suggests that certain tactical options (e.g., already having a round chambered) may mitigate against this sort of legal attack.
The issue of premeditation is relevant only insofar as it controls what level of unlawful killing in which Dunn engaged (first degree murder, second degree murder, manslaughter). It has nothing whatever to do with whether he acted in lawful self-defense. Had the jury believed Dunn acted in lawful self-defense, then his premeditation in acting in lawful self-defense would itself have been entirely lawful, and they would have acquitted him.
What particularly caught my eye from this interview was the considerable weight the jurors placed on the many physical steps Michael Dunn took in retrieving, preparing, and brandishing his handgun, and how the jury concluded as a result that Dunn acted with premeditation. This finding of premeditation was necessary in order for the jury to unanimously find Dunn guilty of first-degree murder, as opposed to second-degree murder or manslaughter.
As Wayne Davis, jury foreman, put it in the interview:
We got instructions from the judge on what premeditation was, and we included, in some of the other ones, we never knew there was no time limit on premeditation, it can be three weeks or it can be three seconds. And from that, from the judges instructions, how to determine it was premeditated murder. . . . From the judge’s instructions of what premeditation was, it really came down to the all the steps he had to take to get to the gun, turn around and shoot that gun.
I leave for after-class discussion whether this suggests that certain tactical options (e.g., already having a round chambered) may mitigate against this sort of legal attack.
The issue of premeditation is relevant only insofar as it controls what level of unlawful killing in which Dunn engaged (first degree murder, second degree murder, manslaughter). It has nothing whatever to do with whether he acted in lawful self-defense. Had the jury believed Dunn acted in lawful self-defense, then his premeditation in acting in lawful self-defense would itself have been entirely lawful, and they would have acquitted him.