'Loud music' trial: Juror No. 4 says deliberations were heated

The first juror to speak publicly about the Dunn-Davis trial said that she believes that Michael Dunn got away with murder. The slain teen's parents say that Florida's 'stand your ground' law is to blame and that 'God is the ultimate justice.'

The Florida Times-Union/AP
Jordan Davis's parents, Lucia McBath (l.) and Ronald Davis, speak to the media after the verdict was read Saturday in Jacksonville, Fla., in the murder trial of Michael Dunn. Mr. Dunn was convicted of attempted murder in events that led to the shooting death of Jordan during an argument over loud music.

A juror in the Michael Dunn murder trial has offered the first glimpse into the more than 30 hours of deliberations that found Mr. Dunn guilty of three counts of attempted murder after firing 10 shots into an SUV during a dispute over loud music but that failed to produce a verdict on the charge of first-degree murder in the shooting death of Jordan Davis, a teenager.

The Florida jury was in disagreement about the most serious charge of first-degree murder from the moment the jurors entered deliberations, Juror No. 4, who has asked to be identified solely by her first name, Valerie, told ABC's "Nightline" Tuesday night.

While Valerie said she believes that Dunn got away with murder, three of the 12 jurors remained unconvinced after four days of heated debate.

Asked what she would like to say to Jordan's parents, she replied: “I’m sorry, of course. Nothing will bring back their son. I hope that they feel that we didn’t do them a disservice.”

ABC re-aired the interview during "Good Morning America" Wednesday morning, as Lucia McBath and Ronald Davis, parents of the slain teen, watched in the studio.

“We believe that they did everything they could to come to what they believe was the most just decision,” Ms. McBath told "Good Morning America" anchor Robin Roberts. “We do now know that they were torn, but they’ve done the best that they can with the tools that they had at the time.”

The parents’ poise after the verdict and in subsequent interviews has shocked some onlookers, but both say they have found consolation in their faith.

“People don’t realize that the justice in the court system is not the ultimate justice,” Mr. Davis said. “God is the ultimate justice.”

Davis suggested that the true injustice did not lie with the jury but with the law.

“In Florida, you have the 'stand your ground' instruction,” Davis said. “That confuses juries. These people are torn because of the jury instruction, I believe, and not the case.”

While the defense did not evoke Florida's stand-your-ground law, it did instruct jurors to pay close attention to Page No. 25 of the juror instructions, which stated, “The use of deadly force is justifiable if Michael Dunn reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent imminent death or bodily harm.”

Valerie confirmed that that language played a major role in jury deliberations, which at times included screaming and profanities. In her mind, the fact that Dunn continued shooting after the teens had pulled away in the SUV negated the validity of the claim of self-defense, she said.

Both Davis and McBath have vowed to work to revise gun laws.

“Justice for Jordan will be ultimately really when we change the laws, because that will be not just for Jordan and justice for Trayvon, and for all the children of Sandy Hook, and justice for Aurora, [Colo.], and justice for Virginia Tech and the [Washington] Navy Yard, it will be justice for everyone that has suffered because of these laws and continues to suffer,” McBath said.

While much of the public scrutiny of the case has revolved around the race of the victim and perpetrator (Davis was black and Dunn is white), Valerie said race was not the focus of the jury’s discussion.

However, the family attorney suggested that race is always an undercurrent in such cases, and typically, “the white businessman gets the benefit of the doubt.” While he felt that prosecutors presented the case well, he wished that they had included a more rounded picture of Davis to help counter inherent racial biases. 

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.