Controversy over Howard Morgan case (police shooting)?

There is a lot of information out there, but given the controversial nature of things it’s hard to judge the veracity and impartialness of various claims. The Dope is excellent at presenting and vetting multiple sides and perspectives, so I’m hoping some people here can explain why it is/is not controversial.

If you’re not aware of the case, here’s the basic Wiki introduction:

There are lots of questions, but they all stem from (possibly) biased versions of the events.

(“Morgan” is a very common term in titles. I looked through many pages of results but I may have missed an ongoing or old thread. Any links?)

Morgan was shot 28 times, but Morgan was acquitted? Is the second occurrence of the name accidentally transposed with that of one of the police officers?

Under [circumstances that I’m unclear about, hence the thread] Morgan was involved in a fire fight with police officers. When the smoke cleared he was shot 28 times and charged with an array of crimes. He was acquitted of some of them but convicted of attempted murder. His sentencing is today.

Is there something missing here? If the first jury agrees he didn’t discharge a firearm, why didn’t they find him not guilty of attempted murder? Furthermore, if the officers were shot, where is the residue or ballistics testing showing who fired the bullets? It’s amazing this case hasn’t gotten more media. Especially since the victim (Morgan) was an ex-cop.

OK, having now read a few articles about this, I am curious as to what the other side of the story is? What evidence was presented against him? I would imagine it can’t be as one-sided as it seems, but I can’t find anything that bolsters the prosecution’s claims.

I first saw this on and found a comment I really liked: [

]( (7031829) Black off-duty cop was found to have not discharged his weapon, still faces up to 80 years in prison for attempted murder, after using his body to assault 28 bullets fired by white cops)

This is the part that amazes me. If you agree he didn’t fire his gun, or commit battery, how can you be deadlocked on attempted murder?

Here’s some stuff:

**How could Morgan get convicted of attempted murder when he was acquitted of discharging a handgun? **

Because he was tried twice, once in 2007 and once in 2012. In 2007 he was acquitted of most of the charges, but the jury was deadlocked (with two jurors refusing to agree) on the attempted murder question.

Morgan was re-tried for attempted murder in 2012, with the same judge presiding. The jury was not allowed to hear about his earlier acquittal.

What was the other side of the story?

Four people’s testimony against two (Morgan’s and the one witness, who says that the four officers pulled him from his car and shot him on the ground.) They say he pulled out a gun and shot at them.

The officers definitely did receive minor wounds; the defense did make the argument that they had probably shot each other. They were relatively inexperienced (ten years combined) and sunk bullets into a few places besides Morgan, including his car and some nearby houses.

A lot of the evidence, including Morgan’s car, was destroyed by the Chicago Police Department while Morgan was recovering in the hospital.

What was this second jury smoking?

It’s really hard to say. They decided in less than three hours. Some observers say it matters that ten of them were white.

You don’t have to fire a gun to be guilty of attempt. The holdout jurors might have found that he was prevented from shooting one of the cops because he was shot by another cop; prevention of the attempted act by authorities is one of the factors which determines whether a series of actions rises to the level of attempt or not.

[40 years.](Man shot 28 times by Chicago cops gets 40 years in prison)

I’m flabbergasted, but recognize that something must be missing. As the story reads, this is either an outrageous miscarriage of justice or an absurdly spun story. There is a tremendous amount of missing information, information that would make it more understandable.