Live blogging closing arguments in Michael Dunn trial

Wednesday, February 12, 2014

Good morning:

We will be live blogging the live stream of closing arguments in the Michael Dunn trial today.

They are scheduled to begin at 10 am, EDT and will probably end sometime between 4 and 5 pm.

The State will go first and the defense will follow. Since it has the burden of proof, the State will have an opportunity to rebut the defense closing.

The State’s burden of proof is not only to prove each element of each crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt, but to also prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Dunn did not act in self-defense (i.e., that he did not reasonably believe himself or his fiancee to be in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury when he fired his gun multiple times at the boys in the red Durango).

The arguments are scheduled to start in about 30 minutes.

Court is already in session discussing the final set of jury instructions.

Here is the link to the First Coast News live stream.


Please do not forget to make a donation, if you have not done so this month. The survival of this website depends on your support.

456 Responses to Live blogging closing arguments in Michael Dunn trial

  1. lurker says:

    Healy just officially recessed until the jury comes back. It sounds like he is expecting them to finish up quickly. Sort of a don’t go too far away kind of admonition with a heads up that he ordered them dinner.

  2. J4TMinATL says:

    Dunn just answered judges question

    He is satisfied with Mr. Strolla.

    He is OK with the laptop, and asked if the surveillance video is accessible. Judge said yes.

    Judge praising and thanking attorneys and bailiffs, clerk staff.

    Nice judge.

  3. lurker says:

    Just asking Dunn if he’s satisfied with the trial and his defense. Brought back memories of the fight in the Zimmerman trial to ask those same questions of GZ the first time, and how his legal team had to take him out of the room first and then practically prop him up and surround him before he responded.

  4. trisha0620 says:

    throw the book at this guy, the man is a damn fool., he knew what he did and left the scene didnt call the cops, drove home and walked his friggin dog,

  5. fauxmccoy says:

    i like the way this guy goes over things with the jurors much better than judge nelson’s methods somehow.

    • fauxmccoy says:

      it is also clear that each juror is getting their own copy of the instructions along with a verdict form. good to know. no one can play the ‘only i can read this to you’ game.

      • Malisha says:

        B37 should be prosecuted for practicing law without a license. She dictated to Maddie that they could not convict because the law said he had to desire to kill Trayvon in order to be guilty.

  6. Two sides to a story says:

    Whew, that was a mouthful. Healey’s a good reader.

  7. In Florida, sentence for first degree murder is Life Without Parole.

    Second degree murder in Florida, 25 minimum (with firearm) to max of life.

    Manslaughter, 9.25 to 15 years.(I think)


  8. neveragain says:

    This is so sad…..what if they had a gun in the car but never brandished it….what if they had aa toy gun or anything that could pass as a gun and Jordan’s fingerprints were on it…..any one can just lie and fabricate a story about how they saw a gun pointed at them…….so are people supposed to be armed or unarmed??….cause being armed could get you in trouble if you are in an argument…..even when it is shown that no weapon was present u get blamed /accused of disposing off it…..I hope this jury makes the right decisions but alas there are so many people who rejoice when a black kid is killed

    • neveragain says:

      It seems like someine should get into an arguement with gz and claim that they saw him reach for his pocket area

      • lurker says:

        Didn’t work for Shelly and her dad.

      • MDH says:

        Damn, they could argue shooting George in self defense or defense against Zimmerman committing felony rape on Rosy Palm, if they saw that act. The “or” being based on which gun he was going for – the 9mm or pee shooter.

    • Well exactly, what if it was a car load of gun owners on their way to the range? Would that mean it’s okay to fire into their fleeing vehicle?

    • lurker says:

      I used to work in a neighborhood with a history of black and white folks living in close proximity. It was pretty common practice when white kids were suspected of doing something to invent a black kid running down the street defense to divert attention from themselves. I think I may have experienced the same thing in reverse only once (black kid throwing shade on some invented white kid). There have been a couple of spousal murders (and maybe even a filicide) where the same thing came up–the invention of a suspicious black character to throw investigators off.

      Historically, in Florida, such a ruse is what led to the destruction of the town of Rosewood some generations back. Rosewood was a black town with some middle class and educated black land-owners in the post Civil War era. A white woman in the neighboring town was on the point of being discovered with her (white) lover by her husband. So, she claimed to have been raped by a black man. This led to a lynching and the burning of the town. The terrified residents (those that survived) disappeared into neighboring areas to live forever under a code of silence about the events lest they be found out as former Rosewood residents and killed. There were never any charges brought and all land owned by Rosewood residents passed to other hands.

      Only recently was there a successful call for justice and an investigation into the role of law enforcement at the time in aiding and abetting in criminal acts. The Florida legislature finally moved a token repayment to the heirs of those landowners. But this is the history of Florida and it has long and tangled roots. Just as generations of black heirs never fully understood the shadow under which they had grown up, there are generations of the heirs of white crackers who have never examined their own heritage.

      • towerflower says:

        Yes, Rosewood is a black mark in Florida History but you do have a fact wrong. Fannie Taylor never claimed she was raped, only beaten in her report to police. It was the rumors that ran unchecked through a mob mentality that changed the story to beaten and raped. The settlement to any survivors and their descendants was approved almost 20 yrs ago.

        It is also important to state that Florida was the first state ever to give compensation to victims of racial violence. Rosewood is now a Florida Heritage Landmark.

        Also the term “Cracker” has several and different meanings in this state.
        1. The first cowboys were in this state and they would herd cattle by cracking their whips and were known as Crackers—there is a Cracker day festival in Flagler County which is a rodeo. Florida State also considered the name “Crackers” as their team logo (meaning cowboys) at one time–made the final list.
        2. Also given to slave owners who would crack the whip on their slaves.
        3. Also given to people who have lived for several generations in the State–meaning a native.
        4. Also used to describe poor whites who used to eat cracked corn as a main part of their diet.
        5. It is also a derogatory term used to describe white people.

        But I for one truly believe we should never forget the past but those of us in the present are not defined by the actions of past but by our actions in the present. I’m sure if any of us go far enough back we all have someone to be ashamed of in our family tree. My ancestry has roots in Germany but my branch of the tree left before WWII but I still had relatives over there during that time. Does that define me as a Nazi? No.

  9. fauxmccoy says:

    as much as the formulation of jury instructions fascinates me, i cannot help the glazing over of my eyes as they are read aloud. without having this in written form for one’s own personal use throughout deliberation, they are useless.

  10. disappointed says:

    I am going to hope race is not a factor in the verdict. I want the verdict to be about a maniac firing into a vehicle with 4 teens. That is what I hope and pray for.

    • ladystclaire says:


      • Trained Observer says:

        Not sure if this came up at trial (no point in muddying the waters) but had the driver (Tommy?) of the Durango been hit while retreating, then his own vehicle could have become a deadly accelerating weapon slamming into bystanders in the parking lot.

        It is a miracle that only one person died or got injured in the outrageous gun barrage.

  11. Two sides to a story says:

    To me, guns are so deadly, it’s hard to grasp that firing one in the direction of a living being has no intent. Anger and irritability are deadly because these emotions can lead to wanting to destroy those you are angry or irritated with. What we’re looking at is an anger or irritation that overwhelmed DuhDone.

    • lurker says:

      Yeah–even among folks who are not normally loose cannons (like Zimmerman). Household gun ownership correlates with lethal domestic violence, accidental deaths and a variety of deadly encounters. I used to know a nurse who included in safety considerations that “people do stupid things when they are tired or angry.” You can also throw in stressed or drug/alcohol impaired.

      That’s why I’m not a believer that arming all the good people is likely to result in keeping the bad people with guns from committing crimes. There simply is not a clear enough distinction between the bad people and the good people.

  12. His mind is a scary place.

    • Two sides to a story says:

      Even scarier is that he had to learn some of that stuff from his parents and/or the prevailing culture during his formative years.

    • racerrodig says:

      That’s probably why none of his “friends” were called, only one former co-worker and his parents friends. Even his parents weren’t called…….that says a lot.

      But Frank Taaffe defends him every night.

      • lurker says:

        I wondered about the first wife and son. It just seemed that the picture they painted of Dunn and the wedding was just a bit too rosy for a first husband who was never around while his son was growing up. Was this some kind of knee-jerk circling of the wagons to protect the white guy?

        I mean, seriously. How many women in that situation are going to go to bat for the guy that left them when he inexplicably shoots up a car and then runs? Really? No questions? No reflections? No thoughts about what was going on with him? And everything at the wedding was smooth sailing?

  13. neveragain says:

    Wow..many comments hard too read on my phome

  14. Trained Observer says:

    Selected gems from Michael Dunn’s own pen:

    *) After reading a novel starring an attorney character, Dunn writes to Rhonda that “he makes a drink that I think you would enjoy. Called a Vodka Gimlet.” Dunn includes recipe.

    *) To Rhonda, he says “I have no doubt that we’ll be able to make many more memories together, babe.”

    *) “If I don’t come home soon, then I’ll be there later.”

    *) He wants an “aggressive” court schedule with “clearly defined goals.”

    *) He says “The blacks seem to be controlling the shots in the media and the courts.”

    *) He vows to “take a more active roll (SIC) in the press.”

    *) He refers to teens in the Durango as “3 thugs in SUV.”i

    *) He declares “we have to get a new judge, too, for the one I have now is very new and not very bright.”

    *) On jail cuisine, he notes “Seriously, the food here sucks.”

    *) He mentions “Mom and Dad are helping me out and with money in the commissary.”

    *) But not to worry, he declares his first meal choice after his release would be “filet mignon and lobster tails” but that he’d “settle for Chinese takeout.” .

    *) He writes to his daughter that there’s “not much going on. I’m still here in Thugville.”

    This is merely a smattering of comments. The letters themselves, well worth wading through, are rife with evidence of his racism, his arrogance, and his stupidity, Links to the evidence dump up upthread

    • racerrodig says:

      He’s a real Prince alright. I’m thinking that Thugville comment won’t get him many friends starting is a day or so.

    • Lynn says:

      I hadn’t read every letter until tonight and now I’m mad as hell that Angela Corey agreed to leave them out. I don’t care if they didn’t want to stir up bad race relations in Florida or whatever their reasons were…Upon reading over and over his repetitions of his hatred of the thug, thugs, thug’s father, gangsters, violent sub cultures, and so on that he throws in after his declarations of being no racist while sending smiley faces to his grandmother makes me sick! They should have opened with, Dunn: “I hate that thug music.” Rhonda: ” *sigh*, I know.” and then entered every one of those letters into evidence. Then carry on as they wished.

  15. Shooting at them in the manner that he did, certainly constituted an act to kill another person.

    The question is what was his intent when he pulled the trigger.

    “Premeditated design to kill” is the issue.

    Depends on an opportunity to reflect on the decision to kill rather than a specific minimum period of time.

  16. colin black says:

    Dunns a text book bully whom as all coward excell at an make no mistake 100percent of bullys are cowards.
    They start of as the perfect freind lover confidante to wooo you if your of opposite sex.
    If same sex then they make thimselfs indisspesable as a go to guy for practic favours car trouble,
    Recomend the best contacts contractors,

    Be come gym buds jogging budds .

    An finaly a trusted confidante.

    All this ingraceiating behaviour Is for ther bennifit not yours.
    Knowlage Is power an so you keep your freinds close.
    Your enemeys closer an as much damaging infoveven closer still.

    And as for those you wish to exploit an use at some point you step into there skin as well as there homes an make sure you no more about them there strengths foibles vices addictions pecadillos .

    In short you no them better than they no themselfs.

    As I said knowlage Is power an with that much info on a mark.

    You dont have to conn them or swindle them take them for every thing they have.

    You can get them to do it all on there ownsome.

    Its not exactly a victimless crime.

    More a crime of stupidity/gullibility commited through ignorance an greed by the.


    An Im far from callous but have no sympathy for peoples whom have ther wallets lightened by hreed.

  17. J4TMinATL says:

    bettykath on February 12, 2014 at 12:40 pm
    “I think he can’t get out of attempted murder of the others. There is no testimony that they were a threat and he chased them when they were in retreat and fired at them, narrowly missing.”

    This is the game changer.

    • ladystclaire says:

      Will there be another trial for that part or not? He was trying his best to kill every last one of those kids and, thought he was entitled to do so the SOB. this is exactly what racial hatred breeds and, this country is full of just that, RACIAL HATRED. I have read where some whites have commented on other sites, saying things like, America belongs to whites and not blacks. the POTUS said it best when he said, unless you are a native American, then you are an immigrant and, your roots in this country are no more secure than any other group of people and, these are my words. again, this kind of hatred breeds a lot of Fogens as well as Michael Dunns and, it past down from generation to generation so, therefore racism will always be a part of this country.

  18. Judge Healey is reading the instructions.

  19. My guess is they will reach a verdict late tomorrow morning, although I would not be surprised if they reach a verdict tonight.

    Depending on whether they are amenable to deliberating after dinner, Judge Healey said yesterday that he would be disposed to let them do so, but probably not later than 8 or 9 pm.

  20. elizbowe says:

    To me, I liked the weight Guy gave to the three youths, who came so close to death. The visualization I have of them dodging bullets in their car is terrifying. I think that Rhonda visualizes this as well and that is the terrifying experience she relives and falls apart about.

    • lurker says:

      I can’t quite figure Rhonda out. She came into the court room appearing to be nearly hysterical. I don’t know how much was put on and how much might be a personality pattern. Or maybe she has come to the crossroads and knew she couldn’t save Dunn without sacrificing her own soul.

  21. racerrodig says:

    Oh, and Strolla wrapping THE DEFENDANT in the American Flag was despicable.

    I hope Fogen sues them both for walking his side of the street.

  22. neveragain says:


  23. racerrodig says:

    Personally I believe only a seriously racist jury doesn’t convict him. Even some racists would convict him because the evidence is far to overwhelming, despite Strolla claiming there was no evidence.

    The only thing lacking evidence of is a shotgun……or a stick.

    Anybody think about 6 hours tops for deliberation ??

  24. That was an exceptional and memorable argument that I feel blessed to have witnessed.

    • racerrodig says:

      It’s an imperfect world and Erin Wolfson prepped it pretty well. Whatever was lacking is purely human nature. I think and Guy hit it on the sweet spot and it still hasn’t landed yet.

      I agree, it was exceptional. The right balance of passion, outrage, facts, and common sense.

      His trip down the “it doesn’t make sense” road got all of it.

      He hit on outright lies Strolla and THE DEFENDANT both made. One I forgot about was his claim that the cousin came and he may have taken the shotgun, when in fact he never went to the crime scene.

      Strolla made a reference that the dumpsters were “right there” when the closest one is on the other side of the store and looks to be about 500 or more feet as the crow flies and far longer by car.

  25. J4TMinATL says:

    John Guy: 36:16 min cross

    Very strong ending. Solid. Guy has that ability to draw out emotions and make any person think.

    “To the living we owe respect, to the dead we owe the truth.”

  26. To the living we owe respect. But to the dead, we owe the truth.
    -John Guy

    • Two sides to a story says:

      I love that. Didn’t he say that in the Fogen trial too? Is he quoting someone?

      • Two sides to a story says:

        It’s a quote from Voltaire.

      • ladystclaire says:

        Yes he did as well as, Jordan Russell Davis forever 17 was also said about Trayvon. I see justice coming for Jordan and, I still hopeful for the same thing for Trayvon. none of these kids deserved what happened to them, not a one of them. the DOJ needs to go ahead and make an announcement one way or another. what they are not doing is BS about all of these needless deaths in this country for the past year and even now and, they are doing NOTHING! civilians are not the only ones getting away with murder, so are LE and, what is the DOJ doing to help remedy the situation, NOTHING!

      • I am not sure if this is his original, or if he said it before.

  27. Your verdict won’t change the past, but it will forever define the past in this town.

    • Liza says:

      In other words, don’t let this out-of-towner scar your fair city. Do not identify with what he did. Very good.

    • fauxmccoy says:

      very important point, which i brought up at the zimmerman trial. a jury literally has the power to define which behavior will or will not be tolerated in the area where they reside and how they wish to be seen by the world.

      i believe it important to remind folks of just this.

  28. Michael Dunn has an excuse for everything, but an explanation for nothing.

  29. elizbowe says:

    Yes, this is the first time I heard that the reason the police never searched the area. It was because of Dunn, he did not call and tell them about the gun. Guy is covering many missing points and tying it together.

    • lurker says:

      Yes, I appreciated that point as well. Gave him the opportunity to revisit Dunn’s cocky belief that he was in no trouble with the police, and he could notify them at any time. And what he did could never be turned into first degree murder.

      Lying through his teeth.

  30. disappointed says:

    And there it is! He should have called 911.

  31. Sophia33 says:

    Got a break and was looking for an update. Thank you every one. Pray the jury does the right thing.

  32. J4TMinATL says:

    When you avoid race, you’re left trying to figure out motive and in this case the State says Dunn shot and murdered Davis just because he wanted to.

    Very hard to convince people that one goes around and fires a gun for no reason. We look for reasons to explain behavior… it’s what we ask…we ask why…..

    • racerrodig says:

      “Very hard to convince people that one goes around and fires a gun for no reason.”

      I defy you to quote where anyone on the prosecution team said that.

      What part of the trial did you miss ?? All of it ????

      The state does not have to explain his behavior. I doubt the jury will even ask this amongst themselves.

    • lurker says:

      Guy opened with an explanation. He wasn’t defending his life, he was defending his pride. Makes as much sense as anything else here.

    • lurker says:

      And by the way, consider how easy it has been to convince people that black youth go around jumping and/or shooting people for no reason.


    • Marsha says:

      I don’t know if you saw my answer to this yesterday since my comment was moderation for awhile but I don’t see why motive is such a problem for you. Haven’t you heard about road rage killings? Recently a woman shot up a MacDonalds when her order was incorrect. A man shot another for texting during a movie preview. One room mate shot another over an argument about how to cook porkchops. I saw a TV program where a homeowner had a motel manager murdered with acid for putting up shrubbery at the motel which blocked his view from his house. Anyone who reads the news will believe that someone could shoot someone because they are angry that the person won’t turn down loud music and mouths off.

  33. Who has the ultimate interest in the outcome of this case? It’s the defendant and his story keeps changing.

  34. The physical evidence is irrefutable and supported by the eyewitnesses.

  35. Jacob Long @JacobLong_FCN
    “If he was truly acting in self-defense, he wouldn’t have run from the police, changed his story,” Guy continues. #MichaelDunn @FCN2go

  36. Two sides to a story says:

    I don’t like those blue and yellow powerpoints. Not esthetically pleasing. Not effective.

  37. Michael Skolnik ‏@MichaelSkolnik 1m
    “There is one moment when the clouds gathered by lawyers breaks up and light, in the form of the truth comes through” – John Guy #DunnTrial

  38. Two sides to a story says:

    To me, it’s a dangerous precedent to allow Dunn to walk in this case. It would allow all sorts of flakey self-defense cases in the future.

    • J4TMinATL says:

      Florida sure set a strong one letting Fogen off.

      • Two sides to a story says:

        Indeed, but on the other hand, it was hard to get around the injuries and the visual evidence, even if logic suggests he caused the confrontation and shot more because he had to than needed to. If Dunn had any injuries at all, we’d be in the same predicament here.

  39. racerrodig says:

    “And he’s gonna attack the medical examiner ?”

    “..the police officers…they didn’t sleep through the night…but the defendant did”

  40. The detectives didn’t sleep through the night, the defendant slept through the night.

  41. disappointed says:

    Yes all 4 of the victims are entitled to the law! Every last one of them are victims of Dunn.

  42. racerrodig says:

    Go for the throat John….It’s about denial

  43. He didn’t shoot to save his life. He shot to save his pride.

  44. J4TMinATL says:

    Let’s see if the LeBlanc’s testimony is brought up on rebuttal.

    “Danger need not be actual.”

    “Michael Dunn must actually believe the danger was real.”

    “If the State can’t prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Jordan Davis

    …did NOT try to attempt an aggravated assault you have to find MD NOT guilty.”

    …did NOT try to attempt an aggravated battery you have to find MD NOT guilty.”

    ….did NOT try to attempt an attempted murder of MD, you still have to find MD NOT guilty.”

    “Possible self defense? Speculative self defense? Maybe yes maybe no? Verdict must be NOT guilty.”

  45. I agree with this tweet:

    Robert Mitchell ‏@RLM_3 3m
    I believe #MichaelDunn got an aggressive defense. That’s a good thing. he can’t claim Strolla was incompetent on appeal. #DunnTrial

    • Two sides to a story says:

      If convicted, on what basis can he appeal? His black people are against me whine ain’t gonna work.

      • He certainly has the right to appeal; appeal is not automatic as it is, in a death penalty case.

        At this point, Fred is not seeing a basis though. That said, I would not be surprised to see him throw something at the wall and see if it sticks- along the lines of what Strolla was attempting to do. I don’t see it working out.

  46. 15 minute recess. Resume at 2:45 pm EDT.

  47. As he makes his final plea, he should not be standing with his arms crossed in front of his body.

    • Two sides to a story says:

      True, shows hostility or resistance. But wouldn’t this be a natural stance because he’s resisting his own lying words, LOL?

  48. J4TMinATL says:


    7 minutes and 38 seconds on Jury Instructions, 7:38.

    Then closes argument with 4:48 seconds of more jury instructions…reading from the exact instructions agreed upon…that will be given to jurors.

    Weaving the thoughts that the jury should consider and do.

  49. riisey007 says:

    Someone please tell me how Mr. Dunns girlfriend was not charged with aiding and abiding a criminal. She said they knew he killed someone after they saw it on t.v. Really?? How does she keep from being prosecuted?

  50. disappointed says:

    Has he addressed why his client fled and never called 911? Or is he just yapping about what everyone else did wrong?

  51. “If I had to give up law, I would become a dentist . . .

    I’m still laughing.

    • blushedbrown says:

      I couldn’t for life of me think of person that Strolla reminded me of and it finally hit me, and here it is. 🙂 Here’s to laughter!

  52. Tee says:

    I can’t believe he said that!

  53. During the defense closing, It’s important to avoid setting up a veritable kill shot on rebuttal.

    He’s done that a couple of times.

  54. Garbage in, garbage out could apply to his closing argument.
    h/t Fred

    • disappointed says:

      This cat is pissing me off with everyone is lying except the man who drove off. Drove off and left the gangster thugs to take the shot gun and kill people. SMH I’m about to give myself shaken baby syndrome and won’t have anyone to blame except this myself. Need to walk away.

      • disappointed says:

        see, I added “this in front of myself!

      • Step away, if you must, but don’t miss the rebuttal.

        • Two sides to a story says:

          The rebuttal I want to see.

          Is there any adverse karma for attorneys who tell lies they know are lies to defend a client? I mean, on one hand you’re doing a good thing for the client and on the other . . .

      • Yup. Everyone was totally lying, and so were all of the results:

        The ME lied. The toxicology wasn’t really negative. In fact, Mr Dunn never even really had a gun. That was all a great big misunderstanding. The kids shot themselves in the back.

      • racerrodig says:

        And he said every witness has a dog in this fight……..Hmmmm..

        Once again the only one to benefit by lying is

        A) The Defendant
        B) Charlie the puppy
        C) Shawn Atkins
        D) Darrion Ates

        And he said the pictures of the child safety door locks were fuzzy, I just went back and looked and they are far from fuzzy. Maybe his copy is, but the ones I saw are clear……here…..have a look see.

        What a liar.

  55. As you listen to Strolla attempt to weave a spell out of various bits and pieces, some more true than others, don’t forget that the prosecution gets rebuttal . . .

  56. disappointed says:

    Cars move though.

  57. Is he actually trying to say that with a perforated aorta, Jordan Davis was attacking his client?

  58. disappointed says:

    They also suffer greatly so I doubt Jordan was jumping in the truck.

  59. Tee says:

    He speaks well and one will be inclined to believe him because he speaks with so much passion, but what he’s selling doesn’t make since. I think that where the prosecution lacked in passion she made up with facts that can’t be explained away. If they are allowed to take her visual presentation back with them it may be game over.

    • dee truth says:

      I guess I must be a strange bird. Passion and drama never sold me outside of movies and theater. Otherwise, I like reason, fact, composure, and clear and coherent thoughts. So I’m good with Wolfson and substance over form.

  60. Wonder why he has such an ongoing boner for the medical examiner? Oh. Because she was so good.

  61. lurker says:

    Now he’s talking about the state not bringing in a ballistics expert. Begs the question of why the defense didn’t bring one if there was something to contribute.

  62. J4TMinATL says:

    @Racheal yes on cross it was said


    “After the continued threat of, ‘You’re dead bitch,’ now the door opens and this young man gets out and as his head clears the window frame he says, ‘This shit’s going down now.’ This is the point where my death is imminent, he’s coming to kill me, he’s coming to beat me…he made it clear what his intentions were.”


    “She doesn’t understand self-defense but you’re right, she was very upset over what I had done. I don’t know what I said but I told her they had a weapon…they threatened my life and they…he…advanced upon me. When he just had a gun I didn’t shoot him. It wasn’t until he made specific threats and got out of his car and came after me.”

    John Guy: “The truth is Mr. Dunn, you never told Rhonda Rouer ever, that they had a gun?”

    Dunn: “You weren’t there.”

    John Guy: “Did you?”

    Dunn: “I said you were not there.”

    John Guy: “Jordan Davis was never a threat to you was he Mr. Dunn?”

    Dunn: “Absolutely he was. Not only did he get out….his head cleared the window frame.”

    Guy asks Dunn about a letter he wrote about the day after Thanksgiving called “Black Friday.” Guy reads: “He had apparently seen me go for my own weapon and dove back inside the SUV.”

    Dunn: “…it’s splitting hairs if his feet were outside but his body was inside.”

    • racerrodig says:


      “After the continued threat of, ‘You’re dead bitch,’ now the door opens and this young man gets out and as his head clears the window frame he says, ‘This shit’s going down now.’ This is the point where my death is imminent, he’s coming to kill me, he’s coming to beat me…he made it clear what his intentions were.”


      “She doesn’t understand self-defense but you’re right, she was very upset over what I had done. I don’t know what I said but I told her they had a weapon…they threatened my life and they…he…advanced upon me. When he just had a gun I didn’t shoot him. It wasn’t until he made specific threats and got out of his car and came after me.”

      He never said any of this in his police interviews. he said (paraphrase) “…he showed me a gun barrel, I got my gun, racked it and fired.”

      “…or a stick……gun barrel, well this part, but not this part…”

      • J4TMinATL says:

        Thank you racer.

        To clarify, it was what he said on the stand, word for word. I typed it out to answer Racheal’s question above.

        The State used Power Point slides to point out inconsistencies.

  63. lurker says:

    The evidence in the case is as follows: Dunn shot at Davis, in the truck, and the other three boys, killing Davis. A witness heard Dunn say “you’re not going to talk to me like that.” Three witnesses, who were in the truck, testify that they had no weapon in the truck. Same witnesses testify that Jordan never left the truck. A witness captured the Dunn’s license tag. The shots could only have entered Davis’ body while horizontal.

    And despite a routine level of police investigation, there is no evidence to support the claim of a gun in the SUV, let alone pointed at Dunn.

    I think that the state has made its case.

  64. Unfortunately, describing a sow’s ear as an exquisitely soft and smooth silk purse can only go so far.

  65. Strolla is a good public speaker.

    He can rock and roll without notes.

    Love the way he uses his hands.

  66. Tee says:

    I see his angle, he’s not only trying the victim , but he’s trying everyone on the prosecution witnesses.

  67. Now he’s backed himself into a corner by tying his defense to Jordan getting out of the car.

    The ME shot him down on that and the plastic piece on the back seat that Wolfson mentioned refute that argument.

  68. He is trying the victim. The victim is on trial. Just like Zimmerman.

  69. He did a good job explaining why he called Ron Johnson, Jordan’s father.

    • Trained Observer says:

      Jordan’s ever so dignified father is not named Davis? Then I misnamed him at least three times yesterday,

  70. lurker says:

    “I got them to admit. . .” “I got them to say . . .”

    Unfortunate word choice. Sounds manipulative.

  71. disappointed says:

    Mr Dunn did not get angry? Most people shoot up the place happy as can be! smdh

  72. Trained Observer says:

    Strolla “And I haven’t even started talking to self-defense”

    Bubble thought from jury: Ye gods, get on with it , will you.?

  73. disappointed says:

    if he couldn’t hear him how did your deaf client hear it?

  74. On to trashing Rhonda Rourer’s mental and emotional state.

  75. lurker says:

    Evidence is solid. The defense case depends on the jury believing that everyone from the fiance to the police to the boys who were shot to all of the random witnesses at the gas station have it in for Dunn.

  76. disappointed says:

    Hope Prosecutors goes silent for 3 minutes. Where is Dunn for those three minutes. Then point out that Dunn’s call log does not show a 911 call not EVEN a one second 911 call.

    • racerrodig says:

      “Hope Prosecutors goes silent for 3 minutes.”

      Better yet whoever closes should say……….

      “You had to endure Mr. Strolla waste 3 minutes of the courts time hoping you’d see something THAT DID NOT HAPPEN. I’d like to stay silent for about 15 hours or so……which is the amount of time the defendant spent hiding the fact that he shot at 4 unarmed teens, killing one of them……..15 hours !!”

      • Trained Observer says:

        Ha! And what’s pathetic is that’s so true … . Plus if the living out of his car kid hadn’t gotten the plate number we could seill be waiting.

        • racerrodig says:

          Yep…..he expects the jury to believe 2 events that are inverted.

          That the police were to look for a shotgun from an event that never happened the night of the murder.

          And that one witness who simply wrote down a tag # can’t be believed because the following year he plead, meaning he was honest, to a break in.

  77. All this stuff about sloughing weapons ignores the Le Blanc’s testimony.

    They would have seen it if it happened.

  78. Dave says:

    Strolla is doing a pretty good job considering the facts that he has to contend with.

  79. speedster489 says:

    Strolla is trying to make the jury believe that the cops knew the night of the murder, a lie the defendant would make up 12 hours later.

    I hope they can see this.

    I hope they can understand that if THE DEFENDANT had called 911 that night and said there is a red Durango and they have a shotgun, then they would have been forced to look.

    And ripping Atkins I believe was a put off. He got the tag number BEFORE he was convicted. Once again he’s got a chronology problem.

  80. Boyd says:

    he’s suggesting the cops lied.

    • fauxmccoy says:

      He is flat out stating that every single state witness lied. Hard to believe under almost any circumstance.

      • J4TMinATL says:

        The Dunnster would like us all to believe it’s them vs him….I know he thinks and was told “no worries” for various reasons, according to his jail letters.

        • fauxmccoy says:

          i read all of those letters. the man is delusional.

          • towerflower says:

            Xena has a portion of one letter on her blog and I told her it sounded like something straight from the treestump and I wondered if he was a member or lurker there. Talking about how the DOJ had 1,000 agents in Sanford to counter rioting for the Z verdict and suing the prosecutor for charging him with 1st degree murder instead of 2nd.

  81. lurker says:

    He’s blaming the cops for not doing a better job of blaming the victims for a crime committed by someone who fled the scene.

  82. Excuse me, but it’s ridiculous to suggest that the ME’s job is to do the toxicologist’s job.

  83. On the invisible gun thing. I really don’t care. Let’s say all the boys were gun owners. Does that give Dunn a right to shoot them in the back and attempt to shoot them, in the back of the head?

  84. lurker says:

    OK–now we are getting into the state’s burden to disprove self-defense. Is this going to be present in every single murder case in the state of Florida until SYG is overturned?

    • J4TMinATL says:

      Good question…..and why the GZ case opened that door…

      Case messed up mind.. everything I thought and believed didn’t matter in the end….

      I do know that J4JD doesn’t mean J4TM.

      • towerflower says:

        Dunn didn’t go for SYG, he is going for self-defense. Overturning SYG in Florida doesn’t mean self-defense goes away.

  85. Thunderpuppy trying to discredit the toxicology results, apparently in an attempt to get the jury to believe the victim was loaded, which he wasn’t. Dunn, however, had been drinking.

  86. lurker says:

    gun sniffing dogs?

    But, why would law enforcement suspect that there was a gun in the SUV. No witnesses, including those who were shot at, reported any such thing. Dunn himself didn’t think it very important to contact the police, and how long did it take for him to insert the detail of the gun into his story.

  87. disappointed says:

    What about Dunn’s toxicology? Oh never mind he fled until sober. Or until LE came to him.

  88. Wow, is this ever effective. My mind is changing as the seconds tick by!

  89. The artifice of looking at the clock for the designated period of time is not new. I used it in the early 80s and it was already old then.

    As Einstein taught us, however, time is relative.

  90. disappointed says:

    Mr Dunn fled seen over 12 hours. What’s the point?

    • Right, I think the jury should sit for 12 hours straight, to see how long it was actually, that Dunn didn’t call police.

      • bettykath says:

        When did he call the police? The police showed up at his place and found him at his neighbor’s based on running his plate.

        • I am not sure he ever did. My recollection from Rhonda Rouer is that the neighbor called him.

          • towerflower says:

            I thought they called him on the cell phone, Rhonda answered the phone and gave it to Dunn, they were at the neighbor’s home when it happened.

            The cops already knew who he was and where he lived, it wouldn’t be a stretch they got a number from the carriers.

          • Yes, we are talking about two calls one with the neighbor, the other with police. In either case, Dunn did not initiate these contacts.

  91. towerflower says:

    Vilifying the witnesses, here it comes…..

  92. lurker says:

    Ummm–what about the witness who heard Dunn say, “you’re not going to talk to me like that.” Sounds angry to me.

  93. Rachael says:

    I thought I caught something that no one seems to have mentioned, although they might have, I haven’t been able to follow much, but yesterday, Dunn said that Jordan got back in the car when he saw him (Dunn) going for his gun – so doesn’t that mean he shot him in cold blood? Jordan got back in the car – he retreated – but Dunn done shot him anyway. Has anyone mentioned that?

    • Two sides to a story says:

      I believe thjs was explored by the prosecution – and the hard fact that no witnesses say JD was out of the SUV at all, but my head is spinning with all that’s been said in court.

    • J4TMinATL says:


      I answered your question below…sorry I just realized I didn’t respond in thread.

  94. White-washing race out of this case forced the State to emphasize loud music as the motive for this indefensible shooting.

    That provided Strolla with an opportunity to claim that music wasn’t the trigger because he doesn’t have a history of hating hip-hop.

    Whether this will make a difference in the outcome remains to be seen.

    • lurker says:

      Hip-hop and rap are not the same–although the defense has tried to conflate them, having the first wife’s daughter testify that there was hip-hop music played at the wedding.

    • Tee says:

      Rhonda smashes that lie twice when she testified that he said he hate that thug music. I hope the jury pays attention to that.

    • Liza says:

      “Thug music” is about the people who play the music and they do play it loud. Race is clearly flying under the radar. Men like Dunn call black men thugs. The black women on the jury won’t miss that.

    • a2nite says:

      If the music was Beethoven, would he have cared? Doubtful

  95. lurker says:

    Overlooks the reality that Shawn Atkins copied the plate number and gave it to the police–before he was ever called as a witness.

  96. lurker says:

    Ah, all the witnesses have a stake in the outcome of the case.

  97. Did he get with O’Mara for the “semantics” argument?

  98. Sorry, obvious question: If he wasn’t angry in the least, why did he kill someone by shooting them in the back, as they were fleeing?

  99. lurker says:

    Is he about to claim no confrontation?

  100. lurker says:

    Claims no witness offered evidence of hate speech. Then goes on to quote Rhonda, “I hate that thug music.”

    Now he’s trying to equate the “classic wedding music” with the “thug music” or “rap crap” that was being played by the kids in the SUV.

  101. He saw the same mistake that I mentioned about the Wolfson. Overuse of the dehumanizing term, “the defendant.”

  102. Um yes, Thunderpuppy, actually those words were “thug” and “gangsters”

  103. Good start to stressing the presumption of innocence, burden of proof and definition of reasonable doubt.

  104. Strolla now for the defense. Closing argument.

  105. Two sides to a story says:

    Hmm, I was going to take a shower during the recess, but I think I’ll do it now and read the thread when I get back. Strolla’s first few words are annoying me!

  106. Boyd says:

    nothing to do with the trial. This website contained a ripoff report filed against Dunn’;s company and Dunn responds to it. it always made me laugh because he condemns copper wire. I assume it’s twisted pair, and always seemed reliable to me with short distance.

  107. Judge is fiddling with the final set of instructions.

    Then it will be Strolla’s turn.

  108. Strolla has a tough job.

    Basically, he has to thoroughly trash Rhonda Rourer and keep replaying the but-they-didn’t-look-in-the-dumpsters-or-search-the-bushes-and-rooftops complaint.

    Oh, and Jordan’s pocket knife . . .

    • acemayo says:

      If dunn is in his lock car with the window roll up how can he get to him with an pocket knife also all the people in the gas station
      will see it giving the law being on dunn side

  109. It’s 1 pm EDT, but no action in court live stream, except for the clock . . . ticking.

  110. I believe Wolfson did an excellent job of laying out the nuts and bolts of the State’s case against Dunn.

    Unlike rebuttal, where a lawyer can rock and roll, the opening closing has to perform the tedious job of explaining the instructions and tying the evidence to them.

    My only criticism is she overdid the “this defendant” ploy of dehumanizing him to potentially make it easier to convict him.

  111. T minus 10 minutes and counting . . .

  112. colin black says:

    Dave says:

    February 12, 2014 at 11:22 am

    For a lawyer, Ms Wolfson is a terrible speaker. Very annoying


    You mean the Monica from friends lookie like?

    Au contraire I think her style Is perfect for this stage of summary.

    Guy an Corey know her a zillion x better than us,

    I concour to there expert judgement if they agree she is fit for purpose .

    She Is bringing this show to a close.

    After corolla tries to raise doubts where non exsist A Corey will get up an do a re re re buttal with a Song.

    After she has sung then the shows over, .

    Jury return Friday 14 to deliver guilty verdict if aforementioned jury Is fair an impartial.

    If the jury stacked an packed with raceists they will return 2morrow thurs 13 with an aquitall justified self defence

    • bettykath says:

      I think he can’t get out of attempted murder of the others. There is no testimony that they were a threat and he chased them when they were in retreat and fired at them, narrowly missing.

  113. J4TMinATL says:

    Additional Letters From Jail 2 PDF

    Click to access 101713_DunnDiscovery2.pdf

  114. J4TMinATL says:

    Additional Letters From Jail PDF

    Click to access 101713_DunnDiscovery1.pdf

    • Trained Observer says:

      J4T — Thanks for all these links. Not all open for me (new laptop with new program that I haven’t yet mastered) but the letters alone are worth the stuggle.

  115. colin black says:

    fauxmccoy says:

    February 12, 2014 at 10:20 am

    i don’t know how you can stand it.


    Read yesterday you may leave America If dunn walks.

    You want to meet up On Burnt Island for a cup of tea.

    Prefer a cup ov cold coffee an a piece of cake.

    • fauxmccoy says:

      that works for me as well. it’ll be a few years. i’m determined to let my kids finish up high school right where they are so about 5 more years, but the husband and i are looking seriously. we’re comparing climate, cost of living, all sorts of serious data then checking out other locations for his company. it will happen.

      • Two sides to a story says:

        I’ll take either tea and milk or a nice pint of creamy bitters! And it could be pronto – my kids are young adults and might even follow!


  116. Boyd says:

    I checked The treehouse and Jeralyn Meriitt Not one discussion about Dunn. They want nothing to do with this guy.

    But I heard that Fox news has only been broadcasting Dunn’s version of events. I stopped watching Fox, can only go on what I’m told.

  117. colin black says:

    Frederick Leatherman says:

    February 12, 2014 at 10:21 am

    Having Frank Taaffe on the panel of experts immediately deligitimizes calling the panel a panel of “experts.”

    HLN is into entertainment, not credible legal analysis

    He Is an expert prevaricator an bigot and enabler,also douche.

  118. Two sides to a story says:

    So does anyone know if the allegation that DuhDone had tried to hire a hit man for some sort of business disagreement was ever verified?

    • Trained Observer says:

      Didn’t know about THAT allegation. Juicy, if true.

      While not as germane, am also wondering:

      *) Exactly how many ex-wives does Dunn have? Any reasons on record for the divorces?

      *) Why Dunn’s parents (Chris Dunn’s grandparents) apparently were not at wedding — or am I wrong about that?

      *) How old is grandma, recipient of the letter, given the apparent age of Dunn’s parents. (It isn’t all that often that potentially four generations could attend a wedding)

      *) What Rhonda’s two kids think of Dunn, since they weren’t called to testify on what a swell he is …

      • Two sides to a story says:

        Answering the age question – Dunn married young, perhaps his grandparents and parents did the same. My maternal grandparents were only in their early 40s when I was a kid and my maternal grandfather lived to be 95 – and I was 50 or so when he died.

    • J4TMinATL says:

      A man who knew Dunn says once he tried to have a man killed because he had filed a lawsuit against his company….evidenced in jail letters

    • dee truth says:

      There’s a lot of “bad Dunn” stories in an interview(s) with a neighbor, and maybe other people, about Dunn’s past (alleged attempted “hit”, spousal abuse, shuttle air space violation, …). I believe it’s in an evidence dump from some time last year.

  119. J4TMinATL says:


    Testimony in court:
    “Probably 3-4 drinks”

    “I had a toast and rum and coke”


    Defendant’s Version:

    Called the neighbor?
    “Rap crap”
    Rhonda told him not to take gun to hotel

    Evidence and Testimony:

    Neighbor called the defendant
    “Ugh, I hate that thug music”

  120. Trained Observer says:

    Shawn Atkins deserves accolades. Were not for his quick thinking, cops might still be wondering who dunnit. In South Florida assorted hit an runs within just the past couple of weeks are leaving newscasts filled with pleas for info from anyone “who might know …”

    Again, kudos for Shawn Atkins in nailing this driver

  121. Lunch recess until 1 pm, EDT.

  122. I think she is doing well, but I suppose what gets me is this whole avoidance of a race issue. I do understand the counterargument: motivation is not part of the crime. At the same time, it makes an incomprehensible act comprehensible, in a way.

    • Two sides to a story says:

      I don’t get it, except that the race issue really blew up in their faces in Fogen’s case, and perhaps the less said the better in order to avoid more “thuggification” of Jordan and trying him in the media. By avoiding race, they’ve let the defendant bring it out – though subtly – on his own and allowed him to make himself look bad (with some help from Strolla, of course!)

    • Yes, I’m troubled by this too, as Natalie Jackson was Yesterday. The issue of race is very much a part of this case, but counsel on both sides and the judge have done their best to white-wash it out of the picture.

      Kind of like photoshopping an original photo.

      Sooner or later as a nation, we are going to have to confront racism head-on and deal with it instead of continuing to pretend that it doesn’t exist, or if it does, it’s insignificant or only exhibited by black people.

      • J4TMinATL says:


        “Sooner or later as a nation, we are going to have to confront racism head-on and deal with it instead of continuing to pretend that it doesn’t exist, or if it does, it’s insignificant or only exhibited by black people.”

      • Eric says:

        I think we could talk about it if we called racism what it realy is. It’s tribalism on peds.

        • lurker says:

          Can you explain what you mean by that?

          • Eric says:

            I think that what gets called racism should be called tribalism. People of all colors have tendency to look at crimes by members of the outgroup alittle differently than when the same crime is committed by a member of the in-group. It’s one thing for your kid to throw a baseball through your window, yeah it’ll piss you off, but if the kid down the street does it, you’ll really get pissed off.

          • Two sides to a story says:

            Ultimately, even when race plays a role in a crime, a crime is still a crime.

            However, I do agree that the issue still needs to be confronted because it still lives. However, I can also see why it’s being avoided in this case – the new racists are pretty damn hard to deal with and always accuse anyone who wants to talk about racial or “tribal” issues as being racist themselves – it’s a no-win situation.

      • lurker says:

        I agree, professor, regarding the role of race in this case, as well as our need to confront it nationally. However, having seen how it played, and was manipulated, in Zimmerman, I am not at all certain that the prosecution is equipped to handle it. What Dunn saw, and feared, and was angered by, was a bunch of black male youths. He perceived them as older than their true age, perceived their actions as being dangerous and hostile, despite limited evidence (facial expressions, playing loud music).

        What they cannot know with any certainty, is how many of the jurors would have seen the exact same thing–regardless of whether they carried weapons and would have shot them. Attempts to discuss race with many white people are frequently fraught with all kinds of denial and defenses–not to mention some politically-inspired stoking of feelings that the “n’s are getting everything,” to paraphrase from a long-ago group of white thugs in NY State.

        To “go there” with a jury means taking on the difficult task of explaining such things as the difference between prejudice and racism. Recall the “creepy ass cracka” scene from Zimmerman. Rachel had to repeat the phrase three times just to get it into the record. Rachel was plainly conversant in majority culture and understood it to be different from “where I stay,” but the rest of the courtroom were not conversant in her culture and speech–including such subtleties as the difference between “nigga” and “nigger.”

        I would have loved to see this case tried as a hate-crime, as I believe it truly was–particularly when the full evidence of all the jailhouse letters is considered. But, I will be satisfied to see a guilty verdict of first degree murder. And find a verdict of guilt for second degree murder to be better justice than what Trayvon received.

        • Two sides to a story says:

          Nicely said and my feelings exactly. Bringing in race would just end up in a stalemate. Strolla and Dunn could equally posit – and he has – that JD was racist. It’s a fight that goes nowhere in a courtroom in FL.

  123. Trained Observer says:

    Excellent job by Wolfson.

    • YQ says:

      Agreed!! She broke it down from top to bottom.. Hard to sell a story of “thugs trying to harrass and harm Dunn” when no gun was found at the scene and there is no way to prove Davis even left his vehicle.

  124. This is not a conspiracy between the three boys in the car, the civilian witnesses, the JSO officers and the ME’s office against the defendant.

    The boys were gone long enough to realize JD was dead or dying and then they returned to the scene.

    They were only gone a few minutes.

    Shawn Atkins comes into view in the video inside the door as he enters and talks to the manager to give her the plate number on Dunns car. A couple minutes later, he leaves and as he does, the red Durango returns.

  125. J4TMinATL says:

    Defendants Statements

    In court:

    “Heard loud thumping music”
    Two young men with menacing expressions”
    “Made his intentions clear”
    “He stepped out”


    “She gets out and the music starts”
    “I don’t know how many kids in that”
    “I didn’t know his intentions ”
    “He opens the door”

  126. Two sides to a story says:

    Checking in fromt the left coast ! You guys are awesome!

  127. J4TMinATL says:

    Weighing The Evidence

    Did the witness seem to have an opportunity to see and know the things about which the witness testified

    Did the witness seem to have an accurate memory?

    Was the witness honest and straightforward in answering the attorney’s questions

  128. Trained Observer says:

    Wonder if Healey has raked Strolla for silly-ass poor-form objections during final argument.

  129. YQ says:

    Wish the sound was better… maybe they should use compression on the track to stop the clipping.

  130. Using the weighing-the-evidence instruction, she now begins to apply it to Dunn’s inconsistencies.

  131. Trained Observer says:

    Inconsistency in the defendant’s own statements yesterday:

    Davis stepped out of car … two feet on the ground … opens door

    Heard loud thumping music. He gets out of the car AND THEN the music starts. .Well, he meant bass hadn’t started yet.

  132. Another interruption by defense counsel goes nowhere.

  133. lurker says:

    And there we go again. Objecting as Wolfson notes that Dunn changed his version of the story from “two boys” in the back seat when interviewed by police to “two menacing black men” in the back seat in the written version he sent out from prison.

  134. disappointed says:

    I am hoping this jury gets it right. Florida is looking more like a anti-child state the way they let child killers go. jmo

    • dee truth says:

      Plus their social services/foster care system also “loses” a lot of kids. Like they literally don’t know where they are. SMDH!

      • Eric says:

        dee truth, this happens here Fl more than people know. It’s as amazing as it is wicked.

      • towerflower says:

        They do miss a lot, a lot of the problems within social services came to light after Rilya Wilson went missing while in foster care. Too many children in the system with too little case workers.

      • lurker says:

        It is organized in such a way as to make it incredibly vulnerable to political whims. I recall during the Rivqa Bary hooha (child of Muslim parents who got in with a right-wing fundamentalist bunch of Christians who gave her bus fare to leave Ohio and then kept her in hiding for 2 weeks before police located her) that court proceedings were heavily influenced by political groups getting to the Governor (seems like maybe Marco Rubio was involved as well). What should have been a simple case of Florida CPS dusting the kid off and sending her back to the Ohio CPS to investigate and resolve turned into a huge and very public courtroom brawl fueled by some major loonies (one of who was able to run demonstrations outside the court and then use a press pass to get a front row seat). The Christian fundies who hid the kid, btw, were never charged with anything.

  135. Trained Observer says:

    Me thinks this gives the jury a nice fat opportunity to absorb that telling slip-up on Dunn’s part.

  136. Trained Observer says:

    Another objection at the contrast of Dunn’s “kids” reference compared to his letter yaking about “menacing black men.”

  137. On to the weighing-the-evidence instruction, which is pretty standard throughout the country.

  138. She proceeds to discuss the attempt crimes.

  139. Wolfson had her mike up a bit high just then.

    Good morning everyone!

  140. The objection was a cheap trick to interrupt her argument and throw her off stride.

    Not well taken and on she goes.

    The BIG boys and women are not disturbed by those tactics and do not use them.

  141. J4TMinATL says:

    Wonder why Davis’ parents are behind Dunn family on same side?

    Blonde just looked over to opposite side and smiled / nodded at someone.

    • Trained Observer says:

      Wonder why Dunn’s parents were never called to testify on what a fine young man their son has been during his assorted marriages and with kid he only saw three times in a decade or so.

  142. Boyd says:

    first degree, that’s good, send a message to the country you can’t kill someone because he flipped you the bird.

  143. lurker says:

    Objection–but I missed what came just before. What was the objection to?

    • Trained Observer says:

      She was getting into what the state must prove on intent to kill the eventual victim and the other three targets. Guess is it was the form that Strolla found objectionable.

      She’s back. And it appears the objection was overruled. Professor???.

    • J4TMinATL says:

      Probably the instructions on the power point slide possibly because they were not read to jury before closing arguments as Prof indicated they should have in his experience

  144. Self-defense?

    He never took cover.

    He fired 10 shots, and in one of his letters to Rhonda from the jail, he said he got out of his car, walked to the rear of his car, knelt down and squeezed off another shots at the midline of the fleeing car until it was too far away to accurately hit it.

    • lurker says:

      And the kids who were getting fired upon, just moments before brandishing a shotgun, according to Dunn, did not return fire.

  145. Trained Observer says:

    Oooh, a little objection here from Strolla.

  146. Trained Observer says:

    She’s pickin’ up speed and volume, and I think it’s effective.

  147. If he were so fearful for his life, as he claimed, why did he put away his gun in the glove compartment before he left the Gate parking lot?

  148. Dave says:

    For a lawyer, Ms Wolfson is a terrible speaker. Very annoying.

  149. YQ says:

    “Was the danger real, tho?”

    “Yup, realer than the beef in White Castle’s hamburgers.”

  150. The critical language is on the PP slides that she uses explain the complicated language.

  151. Discusses the self-defense instruction.

  152. He did not know Shawn Atkins who practiced common courtesy by writing down the license plate.

    He also did not tell Rourer that anyone in the Durango had a gun or any other weapon.

  153. Trained Observer says:

    Wouldn’t Dunn have mentioned a gun to the love of his life?

    “She (Rhonda) testified yesterday he made no mention of that. Never.”

    When this defendant found out he killed someone …. he … did ..nothing.

    • Dave says:

      He would have told her and she would have remembered it.

      • fauxmccoy says:

        hey dave — help me out here, i am a revolver kind of person and although i’ve shot many semi-automatics, it’s not my preferred or regular gun. the ASA mentioned the 6.5 ish pounds of pressure to fire off a round, but that is only if the gun is manually cocked between rounds. i have not looked up this particular gun, but the rapid rate of shots would indicate to me that it was a double action and therefore not cocked for each shot. the firearms expert said that required 14+ pounds of pressure. am i getting this right?

        so when the ASA claims the total pounds exerted for 10 shots to be (6.5) X (10) wouldn’t it actually be 6.5 + (9 X 14)?

  154. Mentions that the defendant did not call his neighbor, the federal agent with the Department of Agriculture. His neighbor called him.

  155. Trained Observer says:

    “This defendant didn’t tell anyone because he thought he had gotten away with murder”

    That’s it in a nutshell.

  156. Dunn was not in a waking nightmare in which every vehicle passing by the hotel was a red Durango because he left the gun in his car and walked the dog without.

  157. Now, she moves on to discuss the issue of flight.

    He can’t blame Rhonda Rourer for this decision. He told her to get in the car and he drove away from the scene.

  158. Dunn didn’t say, “You aren’t going to kill me.”

    He said, “You’re not going to talk to me like that,” according to independent witness Steve Smith.

  159. She uses a PP slide to discuss the time-for-reflection issue.

  160. Dave says:

    There sure isn’t much knee room in that back seat area. Two guys in their late teens plus a shotgun on the floor? Not bloody likely.

    • disappointed says:

      Dunn would like you to believe the boys sat Indian style that way they could carry the imaginary shot gun. smh

    • YQ says:

      Exactly what I was thinking. Dunn says he was threatened but Who would threaten someone’s life with a gun without aiming it first? And if someone is being threatened with a gun in that particular situation, then why would they casually feel the need (and have all of the time in the world) to go get his gun, rack the slide and then shoot into the SUV. Davis on the other hand would be just waiting on his impending death with a loaded shotgun in hand within all that time… smh.

  161. She points out that the piece of plastic on the back seat dislodged from the inside of the back door by the 1st 3 shots could not be where it was if JD’s body was between those two locations.

    The back door was closed when Dunn fired the 3 shots

  162. M2 is a lesser included offense of M1, which means the jury will consider M2 only if it cannot reach a verdict on M1.

  163. Discusses murder 2 and the depraved indifference to human life test.

    Basically “depraved” = reckless

  164. Rachael says:

    Did they go through it like this with GZ’s trial? I don’t remember.

    • fauxmccoy says:

      nope, we had bernie skipping and dancing while repeatedly saying “i don’t know … you decide”. guy’s closing was far more effective, in comparison.

  165. Mentions that reflection on the decision to kill, as opposed to any particular length of time, is the proper test for premeditation.

  166. Tee says:

    She’s not agressive enough for me infact she is a lil passive. I hope that she can tie it all together puy a nice bow on it for us.

    • fauxmccoy says:

      I understand the point you are making, but will also point out that ‘aggressive’ women do not fare well in too many settings and are perceived, unfortunately as ‘bitches’ and thus disregarded as are overly passive women. The delicate balance for professional women is ‘assertive’ and it appears to me that ms Wolfson is being appropriately assertive but more importantly clear, conciseand breaking it all down into manageable chunks for the jury.

  167. Discussing premeditation.

  168. Now, she’s using power point to discuss jury instructions and the elements the State must prove.

  169. Lynn says:

    Does Dunn have a sister? The lady next to his dad has the same turned down scowl.

  170. She focuses on the three shots that hit JD and reminds the jurors that he was leaning over into Leeland Brunson’s lap when the bullets hit him.

  171. Trained Observer says:

    Looking good, sounding good, making sense. No distractions with attire. No hair falling in her face. She’s got her act together.

  172. Ms. Wolfson is giving the opening argument for the State.

  173. We’re on a short recess as the final set of instructions is completed.

    We should be resuming any moment.

    Arguments of counsel will precede the judge reading the instructions, although counsel will be able to refer to instructions during their arguments.

    I think this is a backward way to do it. In Washington State and federal courts where I tried cases for 30 years, the judge read the instructions out loud to the jury before final arguments.

    Each juror will get a copy of the instructions.

  174. J4TMinATL says:

    Has all orders and motions

  175. J4TMinATL says:

    Jurors & Alternates

    10,12,18,23,36,46,55,62,64,67,70 (jurors) missed the first one

    73,82,83,87 (alternates)

  176. lurker says:

    Tried to watch some news coverage of the trial last night. But HLN seemed to be the only network giving it much air time. And they have gone to screaming panels of “experts” (including Frank Taffe–who is there, apparently, to defend the honor of white men everywhere).

    • ay2z says:

      thankfully I have no TV with HLN.

      That is so irresponsible, it’s entertainment, not news or serious discussion.

      Sadly, heard that Fox is branching to Canada with a form of the Fox news network. (Jon Stewart had a Canadian guest last week, saw the interview and they talked about that, Stewart seemed serious when he talked about the dumper the US news media is in).

      • Pat deadder says:

        Ay2z fox is coming to Canada oh no.hope it’s one of those extra channels we have to pay for.Who decides these things so I can complain.
        So freedom of lies is on it’s way.

        • ay2z says:

          Yeah, check out the Rob Ford google search and Robin Doolittle’s book ‘Crazy Town’. I’m sure that was where they brought this up– Jon Stewart. For us, it’s on thecomedynetwork, the US site won’t give the vid clips.

          Scarey, getting that type of politically aligned and biased news coming here.

          CAn’t blog today live since early.

          One thought though, did sit and watch the state, listened only, to the defense.

          I hope that the team leader takes the final arguments, but she’s in a political bind that may soften should she lose this case, maybe easier for the other lawyers to do the on-camera ending for her.

          John Guy’s statement of them proving ‘any doubt’ needs to be explained. And without looking defensive at all.

          Ater folks, have a wonderful blogging afternoon with the best final arguments to wrap up positively for Justice for Jordan Davis and his parents.

          BTW, a black man was sitting ahead of the family, think he may have been one of the officers, not sure, but regardless, glad thos other Dunn supporters in the row ahead of Jordan’s parents, were displaced. They were seen smiling over at someone behind the defense table, and that may have been Dunn’s mommy and daddy who were seen in the courtroom

          That was so arranged, it was disgusting.

      • lurker says:

        I liked MSNBC, but they have been primarily focused lately on Chris Christie. Except for Al Sharpton, I haven’t seen a lot of reporting on this trial.

    • fauxmccoy says:

      i don’t know how you can stand it.

    • Having Frank Taaffe on the panel of experts immediately deligitimizes calling the panel a panel of “experts.”

      HLN is into entertainment, not credible legal analysis.

      • Tee says:

        This is the part I hate, where Fl always F**** up. Fl always get it wrong, i’ve never seen anything like it. Casey gets off George gets off Melissa gets twenty years, I jusy dont know how they do it.

      • dee truth says:

        I know longer watch HLN because they allow (and I assume, pay) Taaffe, a proud alcoholic racist, to spread his venom on national TV – for ratings no doubt.

      • ladystclaire says:

        I agree Professor because, Frank Taaffe is not an expert in anything except, being a bigot as well as a drunk and that’s it.

      • ay2z says:

        For me, it’s far below entertaining now, it’s sickening. But yeah, that’s the class== entertainment. Makes you wonder who is paying the bribe to get this idiot face on air.

    • Malisha says:

      Taaffe only defends the honor of white men who kill Black teens.

  177. ay2z says:

    Good morning!

    Made some comments of goings on in past half hour re jury instructions– they are FWthey are worth, on the bottom of yesterday’s comments.

    Some interesting considerations, Judge even addresses those listening in, as how jurors will interpret instructions incorrectly and has happened and about the problem of writing the instructions clearly and also not reversible.

    Definitions and comma placements and legal wording vs how everyday interpretations might be interpreted by jurors.

  178. fauxmccoy says:

    Sure sounds like the state of Florida needs to do some serious work on their jury instructions. The ambiguity of it all obviously is causing grievous errors, jury confusion, and reversals.

    • ay2z says:

      sure does

    • Trained Observer says:

      There’s no excuse in burdening a jury with 30-page or so instructions of legalese when a summary can be boiled down to a few terse sentences that can be expanded upon by the judge if jurors have questions on any particular point. .

      • Respectfully disagree.

        “A few terse sentences” ain’t going to be sufficient.

        • ay2z says:

          Examples and definitions, a glossary, guidelines.

          Operating instructions!

        • Trained Observer says:

          Nor will 30-some pages of confusing blather with grammar and poor punctuation, unless the goal is to confuse jurors or have them get hung up on minutiae.

          • lurker says:

            Well, agree. But any boiling down of legal requirements is open to the bias of who is doing the writing. The summation from the prosecution is doing a good job of applying the required elements of the crime to the specific evidence presented. This was missing in the Zimmerman trial and left the jury with major confusion. Even if the two sides present conflicting interpretations of the law, that still provides the jury with a basis on which to require clarification from the judge, or to center their discussions.

  179. Trained Observer says:

    “he didn’t have anything in his hands that could be considered a deadly weapon”

    Will wonders never cease … why is it I get the feeling Healey thinks Dunn’s guilty as hell?

    • ay2z says:

      But he’s wrong! He had (at some point at least) his cell phone in his right hand according to his friend in the back seat.

      In the Godfather 3, an assasination was susccessful by someone who could not take anything near this powerful person. He didn’t have a deadly weapon until he grabbed the man’s glasses and stuck the end through his carotid artery. Pair of glasses was the ‘deadly weapon’ therefore, any item could be deadly.

  180. J4TMinATL says:

    Involuntary manslaughter instructions

    Justifiable use of deadly force instructions discussed

    Definitions: Aggravated battery language

    Judge: if he (dunn) believed that an aggravated battery…….

    Corey is trying to fight. Doesn’t want jury to think a stick is a deadly weapon. So she wants deadly weapon defined.

  181. Good Morn. HamRadioElijah just got here, someone pass me a cup of coffee and a bible please 😉

  182. J4TMinATL says:

    Legbrace info is interesting — that it’s a restraint.

    Attempt to Attempted for murder 780.02

    If JD attempted to murder Dunn then Dunn is justified….WTF?

    So jury has to consider Davis’ behavior in the instructions….

    • Trained Observer says:

      A racist jury might decide “attempted murder by big-mouthing.”

      • J4TMinATL says:

        It’s a stretch… Strolla is going to have the find cases on “attempted” and judge is still working on that.

        10,12,18,23,36,46,55,62,64,67,70 (jurors) missed the first one

        73,82,83,87 (alternates)

    • Yes and no.

      The jury has to consider Dunn’s testimony and he testified that JD attempted to kill him or seriously injure him.

      The jury is not required to believe Dunn and there is no evidence to support his claim that Davis got out of the Durango or that he had a deadly weapon in his hands.

      The pocket knife is not a deadly weapon, although I expect Strolla will argue that it was and Davis would have attacked Dunn with it, if Dunn had not killed him.

    • Yes, they have all sorts of restraints. Another one, used for transport by the prisons, is a lockbox, that goes over the top of handcuffed hands.

      • J4TMinATL says:

        I noticed when he was on stand that the police officers and or bailiffs were in the aisle and closer.

        • lurker says:

          It was interesting that Strolla got the judge to have Dunn sworn and in the witness box before the jury entered in order to avoid their seeing him shackled. Then he had him get up and parade his finger injury before them. Judge remarked on that when he had Dunn leave the witness box prior to having the jury leave–there was no longer any reason to avoid their seeing the leg brace.

          Looked like an oops from Strolla.

        • Okay, yes, I imagine this is also deliberate. As Fred points out, courts are careful to preserve the dignity of the defendant, during a trial like this. They have to figure out ways not to have the person in front of a jury, chained like an animal.

          • J4TMinATL says:

            I didn’t put two and two together and realize it was a transport leg restraint….I think because Dunn talked about a motorcycle injury on the stand and I couldn’t hear Strolla clearly when he asked Judge for permission to have him seated before jury came in.

          • Trained Observer says:

            Although Dunn has behaved like an animal.

  183. Tee says:

    Is the defense trying to muddle the waters it the instructions?

  184. J4TMinATL says:

    Morning! Jury instructions are being worked on…

    I just heard that a comma is reversible error on page 28 where SYG instructions are

  185. fauxmccoy says:

    good morning!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: