As Predicted, Dunn Jurors Accepted Self Defense // 20%-25% "Justified" Holdouts Could Doom Retrial

WASHINGTON - Feb. 19, 2014 - PRLog -- As publicly predicted by public interest law professor John Banzhaf, a significant number of jurors - 2 out of 10 on an initial vote, and 3 out of 12 on the final vote - accepted Michael Dunn's claims that his shooting of Jordan Davis was justified by self defense.

This could pose a major problem in Dunn's retrial on the count of first degree murder, because even one juror's insistence that the shooting was justified would prevent a guilty verdict, probably end forever the criminal proceedings against Dunn, and cause even more heartache if two different juries refuse to find that a murder occurred when a white man shoots and kills a black teenager - especially following the acquittal in the somewhat similar George Zimmerman case.

It's not difficult to see how jurors could refuse to convict Dunn of the murder or even manslaughter of Davis, says Banzhaf, since Dunn does not have to prove that he was in fear for his life.


Instead, the prosecutors must prove by the very high standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" that Dunn could not have possibly believed that he was in danger of being shot by Davis.  In other words, they may very well think that he is lying, but  must refuse to convict if they have any reasonable doubt in their minds.

A televised interview with one of the Dunn jurors also indicated that many of the jurors misunderstood the doctrine of self defense, apparently arguing that the killing would never have occurred if Dunn had ignored the loud music, rolled up his car window, driven away, etc.  But that's not the legal issue.

What options the defendant may have had to avoid a potentially fatal confrontation before a deadly threat is allegedly made is legally irrelevant - the issue is what options he had once threatened.

Even then, the defendant is not required by law to try to retreat or otherwise defuse the situation.

Indeed, the Florida Supreme court may well rule, in a case now before it, that even a defendant engaged in an illegal act at the time can nevertheless lawfully kill in self defense.

Banzhaf has also suggested that Dunn may well win reversal of the other felony charges of which he was convicted because of a legally erroneous charge by the trial judge.

The judge told the jurors three times that, even if Dunn was justified in shooting Davis, that  defense does not shield him from legal liability for crimes related to the other occupants of the car.

But that charge, said law professor Banzhaf, appears to be directly contradicted by the clear words of the Florida statute, two authoritative interpretations of Florida's self defense law, and hundreds of years of common law judicial interpretation of the justification of self defense in civil law situations.

If the reaction of many members of the media and the public, including even many lawyers, was outrage that a jury refused to convict Dunn of first degree murder, imagine the reaction if an appellate court frees Dunn on a legal “technicality” related to an erroneous jury charge, and a subsequent jury likewise refuses to convict him of murder or even manslaughter because one of more jurors are convinced of his self defense claims, says Banzhaf.

JOHN F. BANZHAF III, B.S.E.E., J.D., Sc.D.
Professor of Public Interest Law
George Washington University Law School,
FAMRI Dr. William Cahan Distinguished Professor,
Fellow, World Technology Network,
Founder, Action on Smoking and Health (ASH)
2000 H Street, NW
Washington, DC 20052, USA
(202) 994-7229 // (703) 527-8418
http://banzhaf.net/ @profbanzhaf