Skip to main content
Part of complete coverage from

Dunn verdict a win for prosecution, despite critics

By Danny Cevallos, CNN Legal Analyst
updated 4:48 PM EDT, Wed May 28, 2014
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
  • Danny Cevallos: Critics of the Michael Dunn verdict miss a feature of trials
  • They're always unpredictable, and it's impossible to get inside the mind of a jury, he says
  • He says jury may have been unsure about meaning of various degrees of homicide
  • Cevallos: The prosecution scored a win, despite public criticism of the verdict

Editor's note: Danny Cevallos, a CNN legal analyst, is a criminal defense attorney practicing in Philadelphia, New York and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

(CNN) -- If trials were predictable, they wouldn't happen.

You can root for a jury to see a case your way and disagree with its ultimate verdict, but you cannot criticize the jury system for being unpredictable. In that sense, a Florida jury's recent verdicts -- and nonverdicts -- against Michael Dunn demonstrate a fundamental truth about trials. They are not only unpredictable; they are designed that way.

The case against Dunn stemmed from an incident on November 23, 2012. Dunn, a 47-year-old white man, arrived at a gas station in Jacksonville, Florida, and parked next to an SUV that contained Davis and other black teenagers. When Dunn complained about loud music coming from the SUV, words were exchanged and Dunn ultimately fired a gun that killed Davis. Dunn said he saw a gun barrel pointing out of the SUV, but the prosecution said there was no gun.

Danny Cevallos
Danny Cevallos

Dunn was found guilty of three counts of attempted second-degree murder as to the other occupants of the car, but the jury was not able to reach a verdict on the first-degree murder charge in the death of Jordan Davis.

In the eyes of critics, this case was a "sure thing" for the prosecution, and anything less than guilty verdicts across the board is now considered by them to be a miscarriage of justice. Guilty verdicts were expected.

That sentiment belies a fundamental misunderstanding about the criminal justice system: With juries, there is no such thing as a "sure thing."

Case against Michael Dunn continues
Is Dunn verdict Zimmerman?
Race and justice in Florida

No one can accurately predict how each juror might perceive the evidence, argue a case in deliberations or be persuaded by his or her fellow jurors. Jurors can and do bring their own life experiences to the jury room, and no two jurors are the same.

Yet anyone who has waited for a jury's verdict has engaged in the same helpless jury astrology because there is simply no hard science to predict their behavior. The best example is the rabid divination of the meaning of juror questions: those inscrutable, handwritten missives intermittently sent out to the judge and read to the lawyers in chambers.

Tonyaa Weathersbee: An empty verdict, a hollow victory

This system is about as sophisticated as note-passing in grade-school algebra, but just a few lines from an innocuous jury inquiry will leave seasoned attorneys pondering the hidden meaning and the potential direction of the deliberations. The bottom line is this: Reading these tea leaves is an exercise in futility. There's no way to predict a verdict with certainty.

To many observers, including me, this was a strong prosecution case, but not a sure thing. In fact, it's generally only the close-call cases that go to a jury. The most obvious cases of guilt or nonguilt should result in plea agreements or voluntary withdrawals by the prosecution.

Simply look at the statistics. The vast majority of all cases, criminal and civil, are resolved before trial. Verdicts are simply too risky for either side, especially to put up a case that they believe is a loser. A jury trial means each side believes their theory of the case is strong enough to roll the dice in this riskiest game of all.

Whether you agree with the jury's verdict or not, these verdicts give us some insight into the jury's thought process.

The jury convicted on attempted second-degree murder for shots fired at the other passengers in the SUV with Davis. It makes sense. By Dunn's own concessions, he intentionally shot at a vehicle speeding away from him. Even if Dunn's testimony were completely believed, at best only Davis was the aggressor, so Dunn had a minimal self-defense claim against the other occupants.

But, the verdict on attempted second-degree murder may have put a figurative "cap" on Dunn's level of intent. In other words, the jury may have agreed that Dunn's level of intent as to all victims was consistent -- perhaps not the specific intent to kill characteristic of a first-degree murder, but something slightly less.

In the case of second-degree murder, this could be an intentional act so indifferent to human life it evinced a depraved mind.

The "depraved heart" variety of murder is often analogized, coincidentally enough, to law students as closing your eyes and shooting into a crowd with a gun. It may be true that you did not actually intend to hit anyone, but the act was so likely to kill that your level of intent is just below that of specific, premeditated murder. That law school example used to explain the concept to students is eerily similar to the facts here.

While it's possible that the jury was hung up trying to apply the law of self-defense, it may also be that the jury simply had trouble with the definitions of homicide. It's understandable. They are complicated for lawyers and lay persons alike.

Florida's standard jury instructions are available online. Take a look at each of the suggested instructions for the different degrees of murder and manslaughter. They, like all jury instructions, are complicated. They do not get much less complicated just because the judge reads them slowly and out loud to the jury. They involve abstract concepts and seemingly overlapping definitions of nuanced "states of mind."

It's very likely that the jury was hung up on whether self-defense applied, but they also may have deadlocked over the different definitions of homicide.

Despite public frustrations, this was a win for the prosecution. It secured a successful verdict on four of five counts that will, because of Florida's minimum mandatory sentencing scheme and the defendant's use of a firearm, send Dunn to prison for at least 60 to 75 years. That's day-for-day: no gain time, no early release except for a win on appeal.

Plus, the prosecution can retry Dunn for the killing of Davis. 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.

The double jeopardy clause provides: "[N]or shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb in criminal ... cases." If the state reprosecutes the Davis killing, Dunn will certainly feel as if he's being tried twice for the same crime. Constitutionally, however, a retrial following a deadlocked jury is permissible.

Defense counsel deserves recognition as well.

They hung a jury on what many observers expected to be a clear-cut murder conviction. Even without the wave of public acrimony against the defendant, this was always an uphill self-defense case. It was clear from the trial that the defense prepared this case and the client, and gave Dunn the best chance at a not-guilty verdict. Overall, a good job with bad facts for the defense.

The big question now is whether we will see the state of Florida retry Dunn for the murder of Davis.

On one hand, they have achieved a virtual life sentence on the other convictions, which achieves one of the philosophical goals of punishment: incapacitation and isolation of Dunn from the community.

It does not achieve another goal of punishment for the Davis family: retribution. The state has indicated for now that it will retry Dunn, but if it does, one thing will remain certain:

There are no sure things in retrials, either.

Follow us on Twitter @CNNOpinion.

Join us on Facebook.com/CNNOpinion.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Danny Cevallos.

ADVERTISEMENT
Part of complete coverage on
updated 9:05 AM EDT, Tue September 16, 2014
LZ Granderson says Congress has rebuked the NFL on domestic violence issue, but why not a federal judge?
updated 7:49 AM EDT, Tue September 16, 2014
Mel Robbins says the only person you can legally hit in the United States is a child. That's wrong.
updated 1:23 PM EDT, Mon September 15, 2014
Eric Liu says seeing many friends fight so hard for same-sex marriage rights made him appreciate marriage.
updated 3:38 PM EDT, Mon September 15, 2014
SEATTLE, WA - SEPTEMBER 04: NFL commissioner Roger Goodell walks the sidelines prior to the game between the Seattle Seahawks and the Green Bay Packers at CenturyLink Field on September 4, 2014 in Seattle, Washington. (Photo by Otto Greule Jr/Getty Images)
Martha Pease says the NFL commissioner shouldn't be judge and jury on player wrongdoing.
updated 9:15 AM EDT, Tue September 16, 2014
It's time for a much needed public reckoning over U.S. use of torture, argues Donald P. Gregg.
updated 8:25 AM EDT, Tue September 16, 2014
Peter Bergen says UK officials know the identity of the man who killed U.S. journalists and a British aid worker.
updated 7:28 AM EDT, Tue September 16, 2014
Joe Torre and Esta Soler say much has been achieved since a landmark anti-violence law was passed.
updated 4:55 PM EDT, Fri September 12, 2014
David Wheeler wonders: If Scotland votes to secede, can America take its place and rejoin England?
updated 8:41 AM EDT, Tue September 16, 2014
Jane Stoever: Society must grapple with a culture in which 1 in 3 teen girls and women suffer partner violence.
updated 4:36 PM EDT, Fri September 12, 2014
World-famous physicist Stephen Hawking recently said the world as we know it could be obliterated instantaneously. Meg Urry says fear not.
updated 6:11 PM EDT, Fri September 12, 2014
Bill Clinton's speech accepting the Democratic nomination for president in 1992 went through 22 drafts. But he always insisted on including a call to service.
updated 6:18 PM EDT, Fri September 12, 2014
Joe Amon asks: What turns a few cases of disease into thousands?
updated 1:21 PM EDT, Thu September 11, 2014
Sally Kohn says bombing ISIS will worsen instability in Iraq and strengthen radical ideology in terrorist groups.
updated 6:31 PM EDT, Tue September 16, 2014
Analysts weigh in on the president's plans for addressing the threat posed by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria.
updated 9:27 AM EDT, Thu September 11, 2014
Artist Prune Nourry's project reinterprets the terracotta warriors in an exhibition about gender preference in China.
updated 9:36 AM EDT, Wed September 10, 2014
The Apple Watch is on its way. Jeff Yang asks: Are we ready to embrace wearables technology at last?
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT