My question is regarding the double trial of Michael Dunn for the murder of Jordan Davis. Why was second trial allowed to proceed? Was it because the jury was deadlocked during the first trial?
I look forward to your feedback.
davidmich
In his first trial, Dunn was convicted of attempted murder, for shooting—unjustifiably—at Davis’s friends. He was not convicted of murdering Jordan Davis after the jury deadlocked. The state of Florida retried the case, and this time convicted Dunn of first-degree murder.
wikipedia
Double jeopardy is a procedural defence that forbids a defendant from being tried again on the same (or similar) charges following a legitimate acquittal or conviction. In common law countries, a defendant may enter a peremptory plea of autrefois acquit or autrefois convict (autrefois means “in the past” in French), meaning the defendant has been acquitted or convicted of the same offence.[1]
If this issue is raised, evidence will be placed before the court, which will normally rule as a preliminary matter whether the plea is substantiated; if it is, the projected trial will be prevented from proceeding. In some countries, including Canada, Mexico and the United States, the guarantee against being “twice put in jeopardy” is a constitutional right. In other countries, the protection is afforded by statute.[3]
Thanks Emtar Kron JonderSohn. That was my assumption too.
But wikipedia is stating the opposite it seems:
“Conditions which constitute “conclusion” of a case include…a directed verdict after a deadlocked jury,[48]”
Am I misreading this? Was there no final verdict after the first trial? What could warrant sufficient grounds for a second trial?
This seems to give a better explanation, but it’s still a little confusing. Mistrials can be called by the presiding judge on a charge/charges and the person tried (it seems) can be retried on other charges later. I’m not sure exactly how a second trial is justified, but it seems to tie in with other charges.
Firing a gun into a car full of teenagers apparently constitutes second-degree attempted murder in Florida, where jurors found Dunn guilty of three counts for which he could face up to 60 years in prison. Justice, in that case, has been served. The jury couldn’t come to a decision on the first-degree murder charge, however, and the judge declared a mistrial on that count, which means Dunn will see yet another courtroom.
But, even if Dunn’s actions didn’t meet all of the qualifications of first-degree murder, the jury also remained deadlocked on lesser charges — including second-degree murder, manslaughter, and justifiable homicide — that were automatically included with the first-degree murder charge.
So it seems retrying someone for the crime of killing someone else can be tried more than once. I’m still not sure what the legal grounds are in this case, though.
A Jacksonville, Florida jury on Wednesday convicted Michael Dunn of first-degree murder in the 2012 killing of unarmed African-American teenager Jordan Davis, after another jury convicted Dunn on four lesser charges in February but failed to reach a verdict on the first-degree murder charge.
When a judge discharges a jury on the grounds that the jury cannot reach a verdict, the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution does not bar a new trial of the defendant.
correct. “Double Jeopardy” means a defendant can’t be re-tried on the same charges if he/she is found “Not Guilty” by verdict. If there is a hung jury (or other grounds for the judge to declare a mistrial) then there is no verdict and a new trial can be held.
Well, there’s still some nuance. If the judge declares a mistrial over defense objections, or the mistrial is due to prosecution misconduct, double jeopardy still might apply. For example, let’s imagine that the trial starts to go very badly for the prosecution. A key witness gets discredited, perhaps, and it’s suddenly looking like a sure-fire loss. The prosecution suddenly starts blurting out the accused’s past criminal record and information about excluded evidence, the judge declares a mistrial, and then the prosecution has a second chance to prep their witness (not not call him) at the second trial.
This is not an absolute rule. It is true in Florida, but only because we have 6 member juries. In Burch v. Louisiana, SCOTUS said guilt must be unanimously decided if a jury is that small (and in another case it held that 6 is the smallest number the Constitution permits). The court had previously held that unanimity was not a constitutional requirement for a jury of 12, and that appears to remain good law; Louisiana and Oregon still permit 10-2 convictions, and SCOTUS refused to take up the issue again last year.
A directed verdict (in the criminal context) is a judge’s ruling that the defendant is not guilty. It is taken “as a matter of law” and means the judge has found that the jury could not reasonably have reached a guilty verdict. In essence, it takes the decision out of the jury’s hands and thus may be appealed by the prosecution - after which a new trial can be ordered.