Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Newsroom
Michael Dunn Found Guilty on Four Charges
Aired February 15, 2014 - 19:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
COURT CLERK: Verdicts as to count three, we the jury find the defendant guilty of attempted second-degree murder and lesser included offense. We find that the defendant discharged a firearm during the commission of the offense.
Verdict as to count four, we, the jury, find the defendant guilty of attempted second-degree murder a lesser included offense, and we find that the defendant discharged a firearm during the commission of the offense.
Verdict as to count five, we the jury find the defendant guilty of shooting of firing deadly missiles as charged in the indictment. So say we all done in Jacksonville, Duvall County, Florida. Juror number seven, foreperson, dated February 15th, 2014.
JUDGE RUSSELL HEALEY, DISTRICT JUDGE: Does anybody need the jury polled?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, your honor.
COURT CLERK: Juror number one, are these your true and correct verdicts?
JUROR #1: Yes.
COURT CLERK: Juror number two, are these your true and correct verdicts?
JUROR #2: Yes.
COURT CLERK: Juror number three, are these your true and correct verdicts?
JUROR #3: Yes.
COURT CLERK: Juror number four, are these your true and correct verdicts?
JUROR #4: Yes.
COURT CLERK: Juror number five, are these your true and correct verdicts?
JUROR #5: Yes.
COURT CLERK: Juror number six, are these your true and correct verdicts?
JUROR #6: Yes.
COURT CLERK: Juror number seven, are these your true and correct verdicts?
JUROR #7: Yes.
COURT CLERK: Juror number eight, are these your true and correct verdicts?
JUROR #8: Yes.
COURT CLERK: Juror number nine, are these your true and correct verdicts?
JUROR #9: Yes.
COURT CLERK: Juror number 10, are these your true and correct verdicts?
JUROR #10: Yes.
COURT CLERK: Juror number 11, are these your true and correct verdicts?
JUROR #11: Yes.
COURT CLERK: Juror number 12, are these your true and correct verdicts?
JUROR #12: Yes.
COURT CLERK: Thank you.
HEALEY: All right. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I have said it several times, and I need to say it again, that I thank you for your hard work, your time, your attention, and your dedication throughout this last almost two weeks. There will be never words that I could ever express to you to tell you how grateful I am, and that we all are for your service, your consideration and dedication to this process.
It's been a long 13 days, I believe now, and when you came on Monday, you recognized that obviously you were here for jury service, and you had a civic duty to perform, and you have embraced that. I truly appreciate it.
I have watched you throughout these last two weeks, and I know how hard it has been for you, and how difficult it has been for you, but you have performed your duties with the absolute utmost of professionalism. You are why this justice system is the greatest in the world. So from all of us, let me again, extend my gratitude and thanks.
Before I release I want to advice you of distinct privileges that you have as jurors, and I have alluded to this, I believe back Monday or Tuesday of last week. And this is the last jury instruction I will read to you.
No juror can be required to talk about the decisions that occurred in the jury room except by court order. For many centuries, our society has relied on the juries for consideration of difficult cases. We have recognized for hundreds of years that a jury's deliberations, discussions, and votes should remain their private affair as long as they wish it. Therefore, the law gives you unique privilege not to speak about the jury's work.
Although, you are at liberty to speak with anyone about your deliberations, you are also at lib liberty to refuse to speak to anyone. A request to discuss either your verdict or your deliberations may come from those who are simply curious from those who might seek to find fault with you, from the media, from the attorneys or elsewhere. It will be up to you to decide whether or not to preserve your privacy as a juror.
You should know that your decision whether to talk about your experience is entirely yours. It's an individual decision. You do not have to vote on this as a group. Please remember though that my order regarding the confidentiality, your confidentiality, your identity remains in effect. That order will remain in effect until further order of the court. So, I want you to keep that in mind.
If you were to decide that you wanted to speak to someone about the case, whether it is family, friends or the media, I would ask you to please not identify any of the fellow jurors. Because of the publicity that has surrounded this case, I am also been asked to advice you that if you wish to speak to the media today, we can arrange for a court administrator to escort you to the adjacent courtroom, which is courtroom 407, for you to be interviewed if that is your desire. Basically, we will take you through a back hallway and into the adjacent courtroom where you can be interviewed either on camera or off camera and you can be interviewed either with your voice recorded or not.
That would be your choice if you decide to do that. You don't have to. You can just decide that you want to collect your belongings, and we will transport you back to the hotel to collect the remainder of your belongings, and allow you to then go home.
Keep in mind that if you decide to speak to the media, either tonight or at any time, then the confidentiality of your identity, then, obviously, would not any longer be in effect.
So, I tell you that, and then you can tell the bailiff when you are excused from the courtroom as to whether or not you want to be interviewed today, and if that is your choice, fine, we will arrange for it, and if not, we will have transportation for you back to the hotel.
Again, ladies and gentlemen, let me thank you for your willingness to be a part of the justice system and for your dedicated service in this case. At this time, you are released, and I wish you a safe trip home and Godspeed. All right. Mr. Dunn, your having been convicted of counts two, three, four by a jury. You are remanded to the custody of the state where you have been pending sentencing in the case. I assume that he is entitled to a presentencing investigation report?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, your honor.
HEALEY: All right. So, we will order a pre-sentence investigation report. For those of you that do not know, that takes generally about a month to prepare. My intention is to set this case for sentencing and additional consideration on March the 24th unless somebody tells me they've got an objection. It is set on that Monday to pick a day later in the week for actual sentencing.
Other than that, I'm not sure what else there is to do this evening.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Judge, I would like to be clear that counts two, three, four and five.
HEALEY: I hope I said that, but, it is counts two, three, four and five. Yes, ma'am.
So, the sentencing would be during the course of that week?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes, your honor.
HEALEY: Then, I would assume at that point in time or shortly thereafter, we'll have some indication from the state as to how you want to proceed with the regard to count one?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes, sir.
HEALEY: OK. Anything else from the state?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: At this (INAUDIBLE)?
HEALEY: Yes, ma'am. While we are doing that, Mr. Strolla, anything that you can think of?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Judge, the date of the 24th, is that intended to looking at my calendar, and possibly contact your honor for that date?
HEALEY: All right. That's -- I understand that you may have other obligations having been here for two weeks. And so, that is when I'd like to do it, but if it presents a distinct difficulty or problem for you, let me know hopefully next week so that we can then change the date to when everybody can live with it, it would be convenient for everyone.
I also while we are at it was informed that there was an objection filed to Magistrate Sampson's report and recommendation regarding the jail phone calls. I believe that then is going to require a hearing. I don't know to what extent, Mr. Strolla, you want to be a part of that, but if you do, I will allow you to be appearing by phone, and Ms. Corey will be here, and perhaps you could get in touch with the interveners to see if they actually want to have a hearing or how they want to proceed.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And we look forward to the hearing --
HEALEY: Yes, ma'am, I understand.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And I will make sure that Mr. Strolla's copy with that date.
HEALEY: All right. So, the next court date at this point will be March 24th, that will be at 9:00 a.m., and actually I believe we will vacate this room and go back to courtroom --
DON LEMON, CNN ANCHOR: OK. There you heard the verdict.
Here's the verdict. Mistrial of count one which is the first-degree murder account.
Attempted second-degree murder, guilty, which was the attempted murder of the three teenagers and one of the three teenagers in the car.
Count two, guilty on the attempted murder.
Count four -- attempted second degree murder, and guilty again on the attempted second degree murder. That has to do with teenagers. And then guilty of hurling a deadly missile.
I'm joined by Paul Callan, CNN legal analyst, and also Joey Jackson, CNN legal analyst here.
Here's my thing, he's going to jail for a long time.
PAUL CALLAN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: A long time.
LEMON: He was convicted of everything but killing Jordan Davis. The three teenagers were not harmed in the shooting, but they are still alive.
CALLAN: The only logical explanation for the verdict is that the jury hung on whether he acted in self-defense and firing the fatal shots into Jordan Davis, but remember, there was a second volley of shots directed to the car, and those are the attempted murder counts that the jury convicted on and, of course, for firing into the car.
So, I think, ironically, you have a hung jury on the main issue, and whether Jordan Davis' death was caused by his action and firing on the fleeing vehicle, it seems like they convicted on him on that.
LEMON: Well, it is very interesting that someone e-mailed me, and they said, how can he be found guilty of attempted murder and then not be found guilty of killing someone?
JOEY JACKSON, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Because of Paul's explanation.
What happened is -- first things first. I mean, this is the process at work, Don. Right? What we have is a democratic process to invite the jurors to be fair and partial and do the best they can on the trying circumstances.
So, I do applaud the jury. They didn't get to the first count. It happened. It's happened to you, I'm sure, Paul, it happened to me, where you have a hung jury. And the reality is that they took their time deliberating this.
But to the rational and logical argument as to how this could have happened -- when it came to Jordan Davis, the issue was, was he inside of the car at the time of the shot fired? Was he stepping out of the car? Was he outside of the car? OK? That was the issue. Did he represent a threat to Michael Dunn? They evaluated that and they were torn as to that issue, whether or not he was justified in shooting and killing him. That represents a hung jury.
However, as Paul just mentioned, you have this volley of shots, we heard throughout the course of the case, there was this surveillance tape, and you saw the surveillance tape, and you heard the pop, pop, right? Pop, pop -- pop, pop, pop, additional shots.
As to those other shots, there was a continuous course of conduct, but clearly there were some break there where the jury perhaps in the initial volley may or may not have been justified, but as to the second volley of shots, well, they apparently did not think that he was justified at all, and that's what led to the attempted murder charges sticking and ultimately a declaration of guilt and to the firing into the car.
CALLAN: And I think you also have to look at the potential serious sentence that he faces on these counts. Under Florida law, because these are gun charges, very serious charges, as I am calculating this, if the sentences were run consecutively, there is a range here of almost 60 years in prison that Dunn could face.
Healey, this judge has a reputation of being a pretty tough sentencer, although I will say most of his cases have been low sentencing cases.
LEMON: Quickly, will they retry him? Go ahead.
JACKSON: Well, let's address that point and just in terms of consecutive -- why consecutive? Consecutive time means, of course, you get 20 years for one teenager and then another and another. So, therefore, you stack on the time. And, you know, this could be, of course, clearly seen is as independent criminal acts. Attempted murders to one and the other and the other. So, the consecutive time issue stacks to 60 years.
Now, getting to your question -- would they are retry him? There would be certainly an issue as to why you should retry him, because certainly Jordan Davis and the family deserve justice. They deserve ultimately for a jury to make a declaration as to his conduct.
However, the issue becomes, would it be necessary to do it? If he is in jail for 60 years, would it be really -- is it practical --
LEMON: Forty-seven now and he would be out --
JACKSON: He's 47 now.
CALLAN: That's why I think you'll see Prosecutor Angela Corey hold back. Let's say the sentence is to run concurrent. It's only 20 years. Well, she may say then, we were going to retry him on first-degree murder. She's got nothing to lose by retrying him for first degree murder.
Then he is facing life in prison, and of course, this is a controversial verdict.
LEMON: Right. Standby, gentlemen. I'm going to get to Mark O'Mara and Holly Hughes.
Holly first, and then Mark -- Holly.
HOLLY HUGHES, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: OK. They got it right. And actually, he is facing up to 75 years, Don, because it is 20 on each of the attempted murders and up to an additional 15 on the firearm. And Joey nailed it when he talk talked about the consecutive time, because this isn't just one action that affected one young man, this is an action that could have killed four young men, and each one of them deserves justice.
And so, that the state is absolutely going to seek the consecutive time. He is basically looking at the life sentence, and what they will do is that if they don't retry him, they're going to push him to plead guilty, and maybe to a second degree murder, and in consideration for some concurrent time.
So, they are going to get a verdict on Jordan Davis whether it's by retrying for the whole thing for the top count, or trying to get this defendant to plead guilty to a murder charge, and saying, we will let you plead guilty to the second if, in fact, you admit that you did it, and we will give you concurrent time. So, the jury did it, and they worked so hard to get here.
LEMON: Mark O'Mara?
MARK O'MARA, CNN LEGAL ANALYST (via telephone): Yes. How are you doing, sir?
Well, a couple of things. Under the Florida law with the separate cases, they are consecutive and the statue is quite clear that he is looking at 60 years minimum mandatory, and additional 15 years. So, he is going to get a 60-year sentence.
Now, can they and should they retry the case? At this point, it is really almost moot as far as the additional punishment, but certainly the Davis family is going to want to retry just to prove up it was a murder of their son.
Now, the pragmatic side of this, if I'm his defense attorney, is 60- year sentence is a life sentence. There's no reason not for Dunn to go to trial again on the underlying first-degree murder charge, because he has nothing to lose. If the pragmatism, and I doubt the state will do this, they can try to offer him something that is a global plea less than 60 years he has to otherwise get to get a plea on the first- degree murder case.
But I think that we will have a retry on the first-degree murder case, because the Davis family deserves it, and Dunn has no incentive whatsoever to do anything else but try the case.
LEMON: OK. Mark O'Mara, standby.
Benjamin Crump, Trayvon Martin's family attorney, and he is going the jail for a long time, Michael Dunn is. But what we have a verdict for now is the attempted mu murder to other three teenagers. He is not going to jail for murdering this young man.
I think that many people are happy that he is going to be spending is a long time in jail, but why does that kind of bother me that they can't e reach a verdict on whether this was murder or not. Am I wrong in that, for that feeling that I have?
BENJAMIN CRUMP, ATTORNEY FOR TRAYVON MARTIN'S FAMILY: No, Don. It is bittersweet when you think about it. He is going to jail for a long time, but on the ultimate question of Jordan Davis and the value of this young black teenager's life, it remains a question.
If I'll say that I felt in fear of a young black teenager, and it could be an imaginary fear or innuendo, but that seems to be enough to grant you immunity under stand your ground or self-defense or whatever you want to call it, because I think it is a society issue. It is an issue that we have demonized young black males, and we say that they are gangsters and thugs, and it seems like anybody who can come up with a fear -- it was a hoodie with Trayvon, it was loud music with Jordan, and with what is it going to be next time when a young black male winks at somebody and they kill, and say, I felt in fear of my life, and that is what we are dealing with.
And it is not representing black males, you know. When you are a black male, it goes with you everyday and every night, so that is what we are trying to stress to America. We love our children, too, and we want them to be able to walk in peace and drive in peace, and get to be children.
LEMON: Yes. The thing here -- here's the thing, and I have been rolled up on by people, and I have said it on television before, and in my own neighborhood, and I lived in Atlanta, and predominantly white neighborhood and affluent neighborhood out there, let's put it out there -- what are you doing here? And my first initial reaction is, what the -- what the hell are you doing here? This is my neighborhood and I pay taxes in this neighborhood.
CRUMP: Be careful, Don.
LEMON: Who are you -- who are you to ask me what I am doing here, and if I have a reaction that you think is intimidating, then you have the right to pull out a gun and shoot me? Hell, no, you don't have that right. That's why I am bothered by this and that is what bothers me.
Now, if you -- go ahead. Go ahead. CRUMP: Now, Don, Don, as an American citizen, you have that right, but as black males and black people in America, and other minorities and Hispanics as well, it seems to be somehow if you kill us, that the justice system isn't equal. It is almost as if your life is less valuable, and that is troubling as a black person and as a lawyer that the rules are different.
It is not equal, because if it were equal, I believe that Michael Dunn would have been convicted of the first-degree murder, because, again, reverse those facts. If Jordan Davis kills Michael Dunn and goes home and has pizza and a glass of wine --
LEMON: That's what bothers me.
CRUMP: Where in America is he going to be exonerated?
LEMON: That is it. That is it, and I know, listen, I know he is going to jail and I'm not second guessing the jury did. They -- very hard work, but there is something that just ain't right, something that does not smell right.
When someone says something is not sitting right, there's something that is not sitting right, and I saw, listen, I am being told that before and after the verdict you were praying, and I know you were crying, but were you praying? What were you doing?
CRUMP: I was praying, because I said if they don't sentence him, and he is exonerated completely, a lot of people are going to be heart broken again, and they are going to have no faith in the system, and what do we tell our children? What do we tell our sons and daughters about the system that says that if you are killed, and even though you did nothing wrong, the people are not going to be held accountable, what do we tell our children?
LEMON: What do we tell our children? Again, here, he is going to jail, and Holly Hughes says 75 years, and I know it is 20 years to run consecutively, but because of something else --
JACKSON: Firing in --
LEMON: Firing in and he's going to get 75 years, which is basically a life sentence, and then he could be retried.
Anything else you want to say before. I thank you for warning me because I almost forgot I was on television, Benjamin Crump.
CRUMP: Yes, I was going to say, that to Jordan Davis' parents, certainly Trayvon Martin's parents extend their prayers and blessings, as all families across America.
And, Don, we have to keep talking about these tough issue, because it does matter when we talk about this, tough issue of race, and it matters, and because hopefully, the next person who has somebody playing the loud music, they are not going to say I'm going the take the law into my own hands, because if you do, we have to as a society say, we are going to hold you accountable whether that child is black, white, Hispanic, it doesn't matter, you can't kill unarmed children.
LEMON: Right.
CRUMP: Absolutely.
LEMON: Benjamin Crump, thank you. Appreciate you.
CRUMP: Thank you, Don.
LEMON: Ashleigh Banfield, the host of "LEGAL VIEW" noon Eastern on CNN.
You have been paying close attention to this, and following this, and covering it. And she joins now.
Hey, Ashleigh, what do you think of the verdict?
ASHLEIGH BANFIELD, "LEGAL VIEW" HOST (via telephone): So, I'm not surprised actually about the being hung up on that first. But what I am trying to wrap my head around if they were hung up over first versus second or second versus manslaughter, because I could see the jury battling over the issue of perhaps the first reaction that the defendant has is something closer to what he described as the self- defense, but then he went, you know, wild, wild west after that, and ultimately they decided on something more serious for the three other teenagers.
So, I would love it if they would speak publicly -- you heard the judge say that is nothing that they have to ever do, and they are not compelled to speak publicly. I always love to get inside of the jury's mind when they do speak publicly and answer the questions. So, we'll find out shortly whether they're going to do that.
I dare say they probably have an idea that this is high profile and they may not want to be a part of it.
But I want to say something, in all due respect, Don, to your position. I can hear and feel and see your outrage. I see you every day in the office, we talk about these things privately when we were together in the office. But I want everyone to take a deep breath and realize what the jury was presented -- not what went on television.
Not -- none of us was there, and so, what we have to respect is that the jury was presented two sides. And it is what they believed to be more compelling or reasonable. So, no one should be angry that they are caught up in and unable to make a decision on the first verdict. No one should hold them responsible, no one should say that a black child or teenager can no longer play loud music, because that's not what was represented to them.
Again, with deference and respect to Mr. Crump, it wasn't about loud music, it is about what Mr. Dunn told to court he perceived to be a threat. And he said, and perhaps they started to believe part of his story, he said that the music, the argument and the threats and what he thought was the image of a barrel all, you know, went into factoring the decision that he was in fear for his life. It wasn't just music, it wasn't just teenagers, it was all those things. And the way he told the court seemed to be compelling to some.
If you listen to the television case, it seems ridiculous that there'd be a hung jury.
LEMON: OK.
BANFIELD: And I really caution everyone to go into the court a week or two or three or six to try a case, and then spout out how you feel, because it is totally different in the court.
LEMON: Ashleigh, I understand. We get the reality of what happens in the courtroom. I understand. You and I do talk about that, but there's also the reality of everyday life for people in this country, and you understand why people don't feel that justice is served in many ways, and especially people who are underserved by the judicial system, especially people who find themselves at the bottom of the justice system.
BANFIELD: And you know what, Don, it is, and you know who is it usually --
LEMON: And, Ashleigh, let me finish, please.
And people bring all of that to them as laypeople. We understand what the jury was tasked with it, and people are smart, they get that. But we also understand that the jurors are human as well, and take their particular perceptions inside of the court. You just cannot say, here is the evidence that is presented and then forget everything you live with every single day.
Go ahead.
BANFIELD: So, my point is that the justice system is not set up to protect the guilty. The justice system is set up to protect the innocent. And so that the person that we usually see at the defense table who does not get the benefit of the doubt, and that's the real travesty, is the young black male who are still in our presence -- many of them guilty and many of them not.
And so, when you see a case like this playing out with a white guy, I mean, you've got to remember that they, I guess, they gave him a big presumption of innocence on the first count, right?
We should hope that every juror would give every presumption of innocence to the defendant no matter what his color. Sadly, we know this reality, between you and me, I'm the white guy and you are the black guy, we know it's the black guy who usually doesn't get that benefit, at the same extent that the white guys do.
And maybe these are the kinds of things that we should be talking about more, rather than, you know, the outrage over music. It's about the music.
LEMON: Yes. But then when you talk about it, and just talking about things, and that bothers me so much, because you and I talk about it, and we are trying to come to an understanding as people who are curious about each other, why we come from certain perspectives, people say you are pulling the race card. Discussing race and injustice does not necessarily mean pulling the race card.
I try to talk about it all the time, and people are like, why are always talking about it? Because as many people have said long before, it is the third rail in this country, and people refuse to acknowledge that, Ashleigh Banfield. They don't want to talk about it, because it makes them uncomfortable.
BANFIELD: Yes, without question it makes them uncomfortable. And talking about it makes them uncomfortable, and people feel like they can't be talking about it, because they are branded one way or another.
But I'll tell you this -- let's take race out of it completely. If I'm walking down the street at night, and I see four guys walking towards me, I am crossing the street, because I fear four guys, and they are probably pretty innocent guys, and I'm just not going to take the chance.
So, would someone tell me that that a sexist or unfounded fear? Well, you know, history tells us, dark streets, single woman, four boys, teenagers, being loud and boisterous, cross the street.
LEMON: Yes, I understand. Ashleigh, I understand where you are going, and I understand where you're going. I appreciate it, Ashleigh, I wish that we could have this conversation all evening long, but unfortunately I have to go.
And we must remember, this was in broad daylight. It happened in broad daylight in Florida and this was not a single woman trying to cross the street. This was a grown man, a grown man.
Back here, can we go back to camera one, please? I want to thank you guys for putting up with me.
There are many people who disagree with some of the things that I say and many people agree, but I will always give you the truth, and it comes from my heart and from a good place. And so thank you for bearing with me with this, because this one was particularly personal to me.
Moving on and the last time I will talk about it, let's get to the subject at hand.
I want to get now to Alina Machado, Sunny Hostin, and also Martin Savidge, who are down in Florida.
Alina Machado was inside the courtroom.
Alina, what did you see there?
ALINA MACHADO, CNN CORRESPONDENT (via telephone): Well, it's interesting, Don. I was inside, leading up to the reading of the verdict, and several of Jordan Davis' family's members were holding on to tissues before the verdict was even read. As they were very, very -- it was a very intense situation. Everybody was quiet. Everybody was looking at the judge, looking at the jury trying to figure out what was about to happen, then the verdict was read and every time that the judge read the attempted second degree murder verdict, Lucia (INAUDIBLE), that's Jordan Davis' mom, you could see her with the head down.
Michael Dunn's father also had his head down, and then once the verdicts were read, you saw see everybody get up and from the Jordan Davis family, everybody got up, and you could see some of them were holding hands and hugging, visibly, visibly distraught, emotionally distraught as they were leaving the courtroom, Don.
LEMON: Thank you, Alina Machado, and Sunny Hostin also has been covering this in the courtroom as well. Sunny, what did you witness?
SUNNY HOSTIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yes, you know, I have had the opportunity to speak to Leyland Brunson's father, and some of the other family members, also Lucie McBath and I could tell you that they were absolutely devastated by this verdict. When Lucie McBath, Jordan Davis' mother was walking out of the courtroom, her knees buckled and her family members had to help her.
I got to tell you, Don, as a mother of a black boy, I am devastated about what his verdict says, you just heard a car drive by and they're doing a loop and they're yelling "not guilty" and it is unbelievable that the value of a black boy's life does not exist when a situation like this occurs.
I am just as devastated for these families as anyone. Leyland Brunson's father made it very clear while they were pleased with a guilty verdict as to the attempted murder of the son, and they were here for the Davis family, because they lost their son, and they were here for justice for Jordan Davis, and again, just like the Zimmerman case, justice took the day off. There is no justice for Jordan Davis' family, and think about it, even if they retry the case, again, this family has to go through this over and over and over again. And when I take my lawyer hat off and I understand that, when I take my lawyer hat off, Don, and I put my mommy hat on, and I cannot believe that this has happened again. It has happened again and again, again.
I am flabbergasted by this result. It is about race. And it is about race, and no one want wants to talk about it, and we should be talking about it, because if this were a group of white kids in that car listening to the Beach Boys or even listening to rap, we would not be here talking about it. We're talking about Michael Dunn's perceived threat, this mythical shotgun, because he saw four black kids and it is about the perception of this inherent criminality of the black teen and we should all be sick and tired of that.
LEMON: Is that my ear piece or is that Sunny's mic going out? Sunny, thank you. I think we're having an issue with your mic, but Sunny, listen, I know a lot of people around the country completely agree with you, and completely agree with you, and just for, put Sunny back up, and Sunny, was that Sunny's mic or was that my ear piece going out.
OK, Sunny, and I'm just playing devil's advocate here, you're saying if this is a group of white kids listening to the Beach Boys, and my example has been Barry Manilow throughout the week, right, so what or any one or like how do you know that things would be different if it was a group of white kids?
HOSTIN: Well, because I live in this world, right? Because I live in this world as a person of color. I think it's very clear that the code was used throughout this trial, thug music, rap crap. That was very, very clear when Michael Dunn was on the witness stand, perhaps to drew - he didn't have the entire picture. I mean there have been jailhouse phone calls. There were letters that he wrote in which there were strong racial overtones. There is no question in my mind that the issue of race was front and center in this trial.
You know, I think, it is sort of, intellectually dishonest to say, and I don't want to call Ashleigh out, but -
LEMON: Hey, Sunny. I got to go. The Davis family is giving a press conference and they are speaking, I will get back to you. Here they are - let's go.
Jordan Davis' family is about to speak. Let's listen in.
LUCIA MCBATH, JORDAN DAVIS' MOTHER: It has been a long, long road. We are so very happy to have just a little bit of closure. It's - it's sad for Mr. Dunn that he will live the rest of his life in that sense of torment, and I will pray for him. And I have asked my family to pray for him. But we are so grateful for the charges brought against him and we are so grateful for the truth, and we are so grateful that the jurors were able to understand the common sense of it all. And we will continue to stand, and we will continue to work for Justice for Jordan.
RON DAVIS, JORDAN DAVIS' FATHER: Thank you all for being here. It has been a long journey. About 450 days, and me and Lucia and our supporters have stood strong. I believed we've stood strong in the eyes of not only Jacksonville, not only Florida, not only the nation but the world is looking at all of us here in Jacksonville.
It's not in my nature actually to not lash out, and to not say inflammatory statements or whatever, and I have to hold all of that in. Because I think that Jordan, my son and Lucia's son deserves the best representation that he could have gotten as parents. And I thank you all for seeing that we as parents that he was a good kid. He was not allowed to be said in the courtroom, but he was a good kid. We will say it. He is a good kid. There are a lot of good kids out there, and a lot of good nephews, and a lot of good grandsons, granddaughters and nieces, and they should have a voice, and they should not live in fear to walk around the streets worrying about if someone has a problem with somebody else that if they are shot, it is just collateral damage.
There is no such thing to parents that their child suffered collateral damage. We us all human beings, and we love our children, and we love our families. We don't accept the law that would allow collateral damage to our family members. We raise them not to fear each other, and we raise them to be good citizens in America, and we expect the law to be behind us, and protect us, and that is what I wanted the law to do is to protect Jordan as we protected Jordan. I feel that this Michael Dunn will spend 20 years on one count, and another 20 years on another count and another minimum of 20 years on another count.
So he is going to learn that he must be remorseful for the killing of my son that it was not just another day at the office. My son will never be just another day at the office where I can leave the scene and be stoic, because, you know what, we are not stoic. We have cried our eyes out to you, the press and everybody else, and to the world, and me and Lucia and our family and supporters, we have cried our eyes out, because we don't care about being stoic, because we have love, and we want you all to have love in your hearts. I thank you all for coming here today. Thank you.
LEMON: Boy, you can - the pain in that man's voice. Lucia McBath and Ron Davis, Jordan Davis' parents. The pain in their voices.
I have to get time to want to bring in a clinical psychologist. I want to bring in Dr. Jeff Gardere, and I also want to bring in our - we call him, I like to call him our cultural expert, I know he is our political commentator, Marc Lamont Hill and then a compassionate prosecutor as Holly Hughes, and we can bring all of them in.
First to Marc Lamont Hill, and we have been talking about the race and we have been talking about heart break and everything here.
MAR LAMONT HILL, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Absolutely, it's been the most devastating this to me.
LEMON: We'll get to Angela Corey.
ANGELA COREY, FLORIDA STATE ATTORNEY: It's too long before victims' voices were heard and we are thankful for the laws in the state of Florida, and for the attention that you give our victims and hope people do that in every case. I'm very proud of our office, and I'm especially proud of John Guy and Aaron Wolfson for the excellent job they did in the case, and the opening statements and the closing arguments were really, really good, and both of them have worked very hard and our office as always is dedicated to seeking justice for the victims.
I have told you that before, and I will continue to tell you that and we will never shrink from that duty. I am very proud to work with John Rutherford and his detectives. They did an excellent job in this case. All of you were here and you heard the evidence which we cannot discuss much, because we have a pending count, so if you will please respect the fact that we do have a pending count that will go to trial again, then we will try to answer some of your questions, but we are very, very grateful for the working relationship with the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office.
Last year alone, we tried 39 murder cases with them here in Duval County. And in Clay and Nassau, in our circuit and those cases are all equally important. Ron and Lucia are representative of the types of victims who have to deal with every single day, and if you don't know, tomorrow would have been Jordan's 19th birthday and they will spend that, I'm sure wondering a little about this verdict that as they told you, grateful for the justice that was served and the justice that is yet to be served.
I'm happy to take questions at this point, and Aaron and John may answer some of them but - Leslie?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The fact that you have to the retry the one charge, your reaction to that?
COREY: Well, we have to retry cases, Leslie. We have a whole slew of cases, Leslie. You might have been familiar when then the Supreme Court changed the manslaughter instruction, we had to retry several homicide cases. And so we just get ready and we come back right into court, and we work just as hard and we seek justice in the same way. So retrying a case is something that we have all had to do and we will continue to have to do and we will give the same full attention. We don't back off having to retry. Yes?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: As far as the verdict, it is impossible to come back with not the first degree charge, but a second degree charge, and the retry?
COREY: Well, we could make that decision, but at this point, if we retry Michael Dunn, it will be first degree murder. So right now, that is the grand jury indictment, and we would proceed as the judge said. He mistried that count only, and we would go back to trial on that count alone.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Was there a mistake to do the first-degree murder and not second and then tried it with the second-degree from the start?
COREY: Absolutely not. I know that you have all brought up the word overcharged before and it came up yesterday, and it came up in the months after the Zimmerman case, and let me say this and hopefully this is going to help you to understand. The state of Florida has a lot of good laws on the book, and one of the best laws and the best rules of procedure is called the motion to dismiss. And if any criminal defense attorney thinks that the state of Florida in any particular case has filed charges that shouldn't have been filed or filed an overcharge, they are welcome to file a motion to dismiss pursuant to this rule.
It happens a lot in cases, and the defense attorneys sue but they have to sign their names to it. It has to be a sworn motion. It is called a C-4 mission under rule 3.190 and it is a normal practice in the state of Florida, so I'm not sure why any criminal defense attorney would ever complain and chronically complain about overcharge when they have that tool available. What is also available through the legislature is a stand your ground motion. Which was not filed in the Zimmerman case, which was not filed in this case, and so that would be another way to dismiss the charges that they believe should not have been brought at all or charges that are an overcharge. And the third thing, (INAUDIBLE) that you are probably familiar with is the motion for judgment of acquittal and that is one more way that the defense attorney can attack the state's case claiming an overcharge. There were three motions for judgment of acquittal in the case, and the state prevailed on all three. And more thing you might want to know about is the jury instruction that tells the jury if you don't believe that the state has proven the highest ground charge, then you are to consider the lesser (INAUDIBLE). Now, 10 times out of 10, when someone fires 10 shots into a car full of unarmed teenagers we will file first-degree murder and attempted first degree murder. Premeditation does not require any specific length of time, and that is the aspect on which we rely to file these charges.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And what is the sentencing guidelines, and with the charges that were convicted today, and what is the minimum and the maximum?
COREY: OK. I will let Ms. Wolfson address that. Erin Wolfson.
ERIN WOLFSON, PROSECUTOR: As of three attempted second degree murder charges that he was charged found guilty of, he is looking at 30 years for each count, and within that 30 years then there is a 20-year minimum mandatory for each count. And then count five which was the shooting (INAUDIBLE) minimum of 15 years.
Yes, ma'am?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: So, he is going to be about 15 years with prison, and what is the case of the purpose of retrying him on the first charge -
COREY: Well, certainly, I hope (INAUDIBLE) because justice for Jordan Davis is as important as it for any of our other victims. The other thing is as you all know, the defense has the right to appeal this case. And sometimes, just a mere slip of the tongue from a lawyer, from a judge, one of the things we've had a lot of problems with are the jury instructions. They are about to change the justifiable use of deadly force instruction on us again, and they also just changed the manslaughter instruction in the middle of this trial.
So any of one of those things would be cause for a trial on the four counts unless we get a guilty verdict so we would always try a second case or an additional count to make sure that if something happens on the other charges that we would have that in place as well, and so it is an excellent use of state resources to make sure that someone does not get out.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And are you going to retry?
COREY: Yes, we are. We (INAUDIBLE) fully push for a trial right here in Jacksonville, Duval county, Florida.
Yes, Kevin.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There has been some question, some people criticize that you did not spend enough time describing what kind of person Jordan Davis was and (INAUDIBLE) then people say, well, he was fearful of him, and not enough time to say that you did not say that there was no reason for him to be a good person.
COREY: You know, a lot of times, we can't put on good character evidence of the victim, and it becomes right for reversible error. We put on as much as we could but eyewitness testimony and physical evidence that prove that Jordan Davis never got out of that car. So again, because that count is pending, I can't go too deeply into it, but we put on everything that we can within the balance of reason.
And there are times, Kevin, when we have to make a conscious choice not to risk, you know, reversal on appeal, but we walk a delicate line with that, and some times we do our best, and we think that we have done it the right way, and the appellate court says no, but we still go with what we have. This was a very case full of eyewitnesses and physical evidence so we did not believe it that that was much of an issue.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (INAUDIBLE) and now you are going to try him again for the first-degree murder charge?
COREY: Well, we have to sit down with the victim's family, obviously, and we hope to do that in the next couple of weeks, but as far as we are concerned right now, we intend to retry him, retry Michael Dunn on first-degree murder.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Are you surprised it took this long for the jury to reach a decision or (INAUDIBLE) decision?
COREY: You know, the interesting thing about jury verdict is that we have tried three-week long cases where the evidence itself took three full weeks long, and got a 45-minute guilty verdict. I can remember trying a case in Nassau County of first degree murder case with a nine-minute guilty verdict.
Sometimes they are long and sometimes they are not. This jury had a lot of work to do, and we thank them for their careful attention to everything in this trial. So I can't say that we are surprised, but, you know, we are not back there and we don't know what's going on until the verdict finally comes out.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You have any thoughts why were hung and (INAUDIBLE) making any changes in the second trial to ensure we don't get the same result?
COREY: Well, we always make changes. The first thing we do even after a guilty verdict is to say how we could have done it better and we always learn for the next time, so I anticipate that there could be some changes. Yes, sir? Yes, ma'am?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: (INAUDIBLE) What lesson would you take from the verdict?
COREY: Well, oh, we take all sorts of lessons from every verdict, and even when it is guilty as charged, we will take lessons from those of how to present a witness more smoothly, and what else could we have put in, you know, things like that, and how we could do it better next time and the jury instructions are very burdensome, and so we will be devoting a lot of time to looking back over the justifiable use of deadly force instructions. That's probably one area we spent a lot of time, and I don't know if you all are aware of it, that we probably spent in excess of eight hours working on the justifiable deadly force alone behind the scenes and in the courtroom to make sure we were doing it exactly the right way.
I think someone said and I can't remember who or where said it was an easy case for the state attorney to come in and try. No case is easy. There are nuances to every case, and the jury instructions are always complicated and especially so in the justifiable use of deadly force cases. So we have learned a lot, and I think we will go through with that.
Now as far as count one, until we know why they were a hung jury, they did not acquit, and so until we know why they were a hung jury, we would not know how to adjust, and the juror feedback is excellent for that, a and if we get the juror feedback, you all heard the judge say that the jurors are at liberty to speak with whomever they please, and we hope to hear from them about what we could do better.
Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (INAUDIBLE) and can you tell us what that feedback process is like, and what do you hope to hear from them, and do they have to talk to you?
COREY: No, they don't. They are allowed to talk, and we frequently have had cases where a juror will call to the office and say, "I'd like to tell you what we talked about back there."
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And how do you say, this is what did work or didn't work and that is why -
COREY: Well, they could say that, but obviously, they were out for a long time, so some of them were convinced is what we are assuming just based on the past experience. But, we will just wait to see. But, you know, until we hear from them, we won't know.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And are you sure that the -
COREY: Yes, we are not allowed to contact jurors in any case, even if there was a fully guilty verdict, we're not allowed to contact jurors at all, neither are you, by the way.
They're allowed to contact who they wish and they are allowed to speak to who they wish. As the judge said, they're at liberty not to speak to anyone ever about their deliberations or they are at liberty to speak to whomever they please.
Yes.
LEMON: All right. That is prosecutor Angela Corey. Joining us, giving a press conference there saying that she is going to retry, going to retry Michael Dunn in this particular case on the first-degree murder charge that the jury could not come to an agreement on.
On the other side of the break, we're going to talk about the emotion that people are feeling around the country, including myself. Including many people who are up here with me and who are joining me on CNN.
You saw our Sunny Hostin as well. Let me get a perspective from Joey Jackson and perspective from Paul Callen and also from Mark Lamont Hill and Holly Hughes and Dr. Jeff Gardere and on and on and on. We'll be right back after a very quick break. Don't go anywhere
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
LEMON: Verdict in the Michael Dunn-Jordan Davis murder trial. Here it is, can we put that up. On the first count, count number one, which is first-degree murder, there is no verdict. It was a mistrial. They could not come to a consensus on that. Second count, attempted second- degree murder, guilty. Third count, attempted second-degree murder, guilty. Fourth count, attempted second-degree murder, guilty. And the fifth count, which was hurling a deadly missile into the vehicle the young men were in, guilty as well.
He's going to get 60 years for the three attempted murder counts. Twenty, 20 and 20. And then he'll get, what, 15 more for the hurling the missile. 75 years he's going to get. I want to get now to Mark Lamont Hill, Dr. Jeff Gardere and Holly Hughes to talk about this.
Marc Lamont Hill, you've been holding for a long time. We've been talking about going back and forth on text, I've been twittering, I've been anchoring a lot here. What do you make of this verdict and the emotion surrounding this case?
MARC LAMONT HILL, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I am hurt. I am disappointed. I'm deeply sad. Obviously those other four counts were significant and they were sort of unavoidable but there's this other count of murder. An unarmed black child was murdered and the jury couldn't come to find him guilty. That is disturbing, that is stunning and is a reminder that black lives in America still don't matter.
In so many ways in this trial, Jordan was the one who was on trial. He is the one whose innocence or guilt was being debated. What we determined, once again, like in the case of Trayvon is that he was found guilty of being young, black and outside which in this country is often a lethal defense. It's a capital crime. That's what's disturbing to me.
And as a parent, citizen, an activist, as an intellectual, in any capacity that I have, I am deeply disturbed at where we are as a nation. This is just a reminder.
LEMON: I want to go to Holly Hughes, next. I'm saving you for last, Dr. Jeff Gardere. Because you can wrap it in a bow for us. Because your expertise as a clinical psychologist. Holly Hughes, talk to me. What are you thinking about this verdict?
HOLLY HUGHES, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Yes, don, let's just keep it really real. Us lawyers use this term, we say assuming arguendo, meaning, how about if it was like this, let's flip this, Don. Let's say that in this case the state of Florida, black men were murdering teenage white boys and then when they went to trial, they got acquitted using stand your ground. Do we really think if that was happening that they wouldn't repeal the law or change it?
That's what it comes down to. You know, I heard a lot of people saying, "Oh, well, you know, black men get convicted and that's the problem." No, no, no, no, no. Let's do exactly the reverse. Black adult men murdering white boy teenagers in Florida and then getting acquitted. There would be a riot to equal none. They would repeal that law so fast and say you can't have stand your ground anymore. So why is it OK in this situation? Why is it OK? Can we just ask the question?
LEMON: We've been asking. And we asked - Marc Lamont Hill, we get, hey, people are like, you're a racist, you're a racist, Don Lemon. You're a race baiter and I'm tired of you playing the race card. You know what? Just by talking about race does not mean playing the race card. Playing the race card means getting some sort of advantage because you're saying "OK, because of my race I should have an advantage." Not pointing out the obvious or inequities in society. That is not playing the race card. Go ahead, Dr. Jeff Gardere.
DR. JEFF GARDERE, CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGIST: Not at all. It's not playing the race card. It's become politically incorrect to talk about the fact that race continues to be a problem. Racism for all of us. Look what we know about Michael Dunn, from the letters from jail, his past history. A history of hate, ignorance, racism, anger. And it's led to his destruction, but even worse, the destruction of a young innocent man who's been taken from his family. No good can come from racism, from this hate and ignorance. We've got to resolve it. We've got to talk about it. We all have to be better. That's what makes America great. The fact that we can work on these issues. We've got to do it. We've got to talk about it.
LEMON: Marc, everywhere I go, people say, I love the chemistry between you and Mark Lamont Hill. I love listening to you guys and you guys are always disagreeing. I say, "No, we don't," I say but even if we do disagree, we're talking about it in a civil matter which is important, which we all should. And many times I play the straight guy to Mark Lamont Hill, the devil's advocate, so to speak, the other way around; however you want to say it.
I play devil's advocate so that we can have a thoughtful conversation to make people think differently, Marc Lamont Hill and I think we need to do more of that.
HILL: I agree 100 percent. So much of what civil debate is about is engaging other people's ideas and taking other people seriously. Part of the hate that we've been getting today with regard to this trial is people are unwilling to consider the opposite circumstance. They're unwilling to imagine a world where young white boys are getting basically attacked and assaulted and surveilled on a regular basis. They can't imagine that result. They can't imagine a result where the black men are getting off for killing white children. Unarmed white children. And go get a pizza afterward.
That world is unimaginable to them. Because part of what white privilege allows you to do is not to have consider such realities, not to consider such circumstances while we deal with them every single day. People are telling me on twitter right now I should be happy with the other four counts. Of course I should be happy. I mean he shot at a car as it was pulling off. Yes, you should go to jail for that. But you should also go to jail for killing unarmed children.
I'm only satisfied when the message comes out that our children are off limits just like everyone else's babies. Until that happens, we have a lot of talking to do and a lot of action to engage in.
LEMON: Hold your thoughts, everyone. Thank you.
