Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion

Readers of Legal Insurrection will have noted our ongoing coverage of the Florida “loud music” trial, in which the defendant Michael Dunn is charged with 1st degree murder in the shooting death of 17-year-old Jordan Davis. The general narrative of events at the scene of the killing is that both men (Davis accompanied by three friends, Dunn by his fiancé) were fueling their cars at a local gas station. Davis’ vehicle was playing music at a sound unpleasant to Dunn—and indeed, forensics photos show a massive set of speakers mounted in the rear of Davis’ SUV—and he asked them to turn the music down. The youths declined, and an escalating and increasingly hostile verbal confrontation began. Here the prosecution and defense narratives differ. The State essentially argues that Dunn was so enraged by the music that he drew his licensed pistol and shot Davis and his friends, Davis mortally. The defense argues that Davis and his friends were making explicit deadly threats against him, and he only shot at them when he reasonably perceived what appeared to be a weapon. (No weapon was actually recovered from the vehicle, although this fact is of course not dispositive in a self-defense case, so long as Dunn’s perception of a weapon was reasonable even if mistaken). [caption id="attachment_77488" align="alignnone" width="450"] Michael Dunn on trial on charges of 1st Degree murder for the shooting death of Jordan Davis[/caption]

Presiding Judge Russell Healey Becomes Center of Focus for Media Coverage of Trial

Much of the news about the trial, however, has had little to do with either the State’s case against Dunn or Dunn’s defense against the charges. Instead, rather unusually, much of the last several week’s attention has focused primarily on the Judge overseeing the case, Judge Russell Healey. One might wonder, then, who is Russell Healey in terms of judicial background, experience, and temperament?

The ongoing drama in the Michael Dunn “loud music” murder trial over whether jailhouse phone recordings should be released to the media has taken yet another turn. Yesterday the 1st District Court of Appeals once again felt compelled to step in--now for the third time--to reverse the Healey’s Wednesday ruling tossing the matter to civil court, and to demand an emergency hearing of all parties. (I haven’t yet seen yesterday’s 1st DCA ruling, so I don’t know if it literally says, “Get in our courtroom, NOW!” but I wouldn’t be the least surprised.) In addition, they’ve ordered that Healey’s immediate superior, Chief Judge Donald Mora, appoint yet another judge to hold an evidentiary hearing on whether the State’s estimated cost (~$6,300) for redaction of the recordings is reasonable, taking the matter out of Healey’s hands. (A kind interpretation of this last would be that they recognize Healey will be busy with jury selection for the start of the Dunn trial on Monday.) Some brief history of this discovery drama may provide useful context. Keep in mind, the existence of the phone recordings was known to all parties as long ago as October 2013, and the media has been demanding access to them since that time. [caption id="attachment_77430" align="alignnone" width="450"] Michael Dunn interviewed by police following "loud music" shooting of Jordan Davis[/caption] As we noted in our blog January 8 post on the case: