WEBVTT - Stand Your Ground Trial Begins in Florida

0:00:00.120 --> 0:00:04.040
<v Speaker 1>No one disputes that Michael Draco fatally shot Marcus mcglockton.

0:00:04.320 --> 0:00:06.600
<v Speaker 1>After all, you can see that on the surveillance video

0:00:06.640 --> 0:00:10.440
<v Speaker 1>that ignited a national debate over Florida stand your ground law.

0:00:10.920 --> 0:00:14.040
<v Speaker 1>The question of Draca's manslaughter trial is whether he pulled

0:00:14.080 --> 0:00:17.120
<v Speaker 1>the trigger in fear for his life. Here's what Draco

0:00:17.239 --> 0:00:20.880
<v Speaker 1>told the county Sheriff's in an interview after the shooting.

0:00:21.560 --> 0:00:23.439
<v Speaker 1>I'm thinking he's coming to do the rest of it.

0:00:23.760 --> 0:00:25.959
<v Speaker 1>Did you see him on the fire No, Shara, I

0:00:25.960 --> 0:00:28.200
<v Speaker 1>didn't see him without anything. Okay, what do you mean

0:00:28.240 --> 0:00:31.440
<v Speaker 1>the rest of it? Whatever beating was coming out of that.

0:00:32.000 --> 0:00:33.559
<v Speaker 1>So he thought he was going to be jun So

0:00:34.280 --> 0:00:38.120
<v Speaker 1>you're kidding, Okay, all right? So if he got him,

0:00:38.159 --> 0:00:41.360
<v Speaker 1>he had hard to begin with, from blindside, from the gigo.

0:00:41.479 --> 0:00:44.400
<v Speaker 1>What else should I expect? My guest is from a

0:00:44.520 --> 0:00:49.720
<v Speaker 1>federal prosecutor, George Newhouse at Theodore Oorringer. George explained the

0:00:49.760 --> 0:00:54.920
<v Speaker 1>stand your ground law in Florida. Good good morning, tune at.

0:00:54.960 --> 0:00:57.720
<v Speaker 1>The standard ground law in Florida is an unusual statute.

0:00:58.480 --> 0:01:01.840
<v Speaker 1>It basically provides it a person who is not otherwise

0:01:01.960 --> 0:01:04.960
<v Speaker 1>engaged on lawful activity and who is who isn't a

0:01:05.000 --> 0:01:07.520
<v Speaker 1>place where they have a right to be, and who

0:01:07.640 --> 0:01:11.240
<v Speaker 1>is then attacked, as Draca says, he was attacked here,

0:01:11.880 --> 0:01:14.520
<v Speaker 1>it does not have a duty to retreat if that's

0:01:14.520 --> 0:01:17.640
<v Speaker 1>available to him, and he can stand his ground and

0:01:17.680 --> 0:01:22.080
<v Speaker 1>defend himself indeed with force, which in this case was

0:01:22.120 --> 0:01:25.200
<v Speaker 1>of course, deadly force. The use of deadly force has

0:01:25.240 --> 0:01:28.800
<v Speaker 1>to be reasonable under the circumstances. But the key part

0:01:28.800 --> 0:01:31.319
<v Speaker 1>of that law is under the common law, if you

0:01:31.360 --> 0:01:34.440
<v Speaker 1>were attacked and you had an avenue of escape, you

0:01:34.480 --> 0:01:37.679
<v Speaker 1>could retreat safely, you were required to do that, and

0:01:37.720 --> 0:01:40.000
<v Speaker 1>you will not be able to interpose a defense of

0:01:40.080 --> 0:01:44.200
<v Speaker 1>self defense. So that's the Florida Statute um and that's

0:01:44.480 --> 0:01:48.360
<v Speaker 1>currently in place. So Drake's attorneys told c an End

0:01:48.400 --> 0:01:51.640
<v Speaker 1>that they won't be using standard ground during the trial,

0:01:51.720 --> 0:01:55.360
<v Speaker 1>but instead they'll argue that he acted in self defense.

0:01:55.800 --> 0:01:58.720
<v Speaker 1>How is that different and why wouldn't they use the

0:01:58.760 --> 0:02:03.280
<v Speaker 1>other law. Well, it's an interesting question because the Florida

0:02:03.320 --> 0:02:07.440
<v Speaker 1>Statute has another interesting provision that actually provides for immunity.

0:02:07.480 --> 0:02:10.680
<v Speaker 1>So if you can, if a defendant can show reasonable

0:02:10.680 --> 0:02:14.000
<v Speaker 1>the court reasonable cause that that he was attacked and

0:02:14.120 --> 0:02:17.320
<v Speaker 1>that he responded in the way that he did with

0:02:17.680 --> 0:02:21.440
<v Speaker 1>the force in order to save himself. In some cases

0:02:21.480 --> 0:02:24.120
<v Speaker 1>you can actually convince the judge to throw the criminal

0:02:24.160 --> 0:02:26.840
<v Speaker 1>case out. It doesn't even go to trial. Um. The

0:02:26.880 --> 0:02:29.080
<v Speaker 1>reason why they're probably not using it in this case

0:02:29.280 --> 0:02:34.840
<v Speaker 1>was clearly his only defense is self defense, and I

0:02:35.160 --> 0:02:38.200
<v Speaker 1>don't think the elements of standard ground apply. The man

0:02:38.280 --> 0:02:40.320
<v Speaker 1>was sitting on the ground. He never got up. He

0:02:40.440 --> 0:02:43.360
<v Speaker 1>just took his gun out and he fired it. And

0:02:43.480 --> 0:02:47.600
<v Speaker 1>we heard in that interview with the county sheriffs he

0:02:47.680 --> 0:02:50.040
<v Speaker 1>said he was afraid he was going to get beaten.

0:02:50.120 --> 0:02:53.440
<v Speaker 1>He didn't say that he was afraid for his life.

0:02:54.400 --> 0:02:58.200
<v Speaker 1>Does that make a difference. It makes a huge difference,

0:02:58.240 --> 0:03:02.400
<v Speaker 1>and you you pinpointed on theness in the defense case. Yes.

0:03:02.600 --> 0:03:05.680
<v Speaker 1>In other words, if you're afraid of being beaten or

0:03:05.720 --> 0:03:08.960
<v Speaker 1>even seriously attacked, UM, you do not have the right

0:03:09.040 --> 0:03:12.639
<v Speaker 1>to in any state, including Florida, to use self defense.

0:03:12.639 --> 0:03:15.240
<v Speaker 1>So someone, as in this case, pushes you to the ground,

0:03:16.000 --> 0:03:18.160
<v Speaker 1>you can't just whip out your firearm, which he had

0:03:18.160 --> 0:03:21.120
<v Speaker 1>a legal right to carry, and fire away. You have

0:03:21.280 --> 0:03:24.680
<v Speaker 1>to be concerned or have reason to believe that deadly

0:03:24.760 --> 0:03:27.160
<v Speaker 1>force is coming next. And there's nothing that I've seen

0:03:27.200 --> 0:03:30.120
<v Speaker 1>in the videotape or in the facts that would indicate

0:03:30.160 --> 0:03:33.120
<v Speaker 1>that he had a reasonable concern that his life's either

0:03:33.240 --> 0:03:37.520
<v Speaker 1>life or a serious infliction of dangerous bodily harm or

0:03:37.800 --> 0:03:40.280
<v Speaker 1>protection of others. None of that appears to be the

0:03:40.320 --> 0:03:44.120
<v Speaker 1>case here, So that's his weakness. Prosecutors are going to

0:03:44.160 --> 0:03:47.360
<v Speaker 1>be allowed to call an African American truck driver who

0:03:47.400 --> 0:03:50.760
<v Speaker 1>says that Drake had threatened him and to shoot him

0:03:51.120 --> 0:03:54.680
<v Speaker 1>months earlier in a confrontation over that same parking spot.

0:03:55.720 --> 0:04:00.400
<v Speaker 1>Isn't that very prejudicial? Why would the judge allow that? Well,

0:04:00.440 --> 0:04:02.440
<v Speaker 1>it's not clear that judge will allow it. That kind

0:04:02.480 --> 0:04:06.680
<v Speaker 1>of evidence is called bad prior acts, and generally courts

0:04:06.720 --> 0:04:09.520
<v Speaker 1>exclude bad prior acts for the reason you just mentioned

0:04:09.560 --> 0:04:14.160
<v Speaker 1>you because it is hugely prejudicial. If that evidence is introduced,

0:04:14.240 --> 0:04:17.640
<v Speaker 1>it virtually guarantees of the defendant will be convicted because

0:04:17.680 --> 0:04:20.680
<v Speaker 1>the jury will assume that his actions in this case

0:04:20.720 --> 0:04:24.160
<v Speaker 1>were in accordance with his past, which was he apparently

0:04:24.200 --> 0:04:27.200
<v Speaker 1>had this this thing for this particular parking lot, and

0:04:27.279 --> 0:04:30.880
<v Speaker 1>in fact, they may infer racial animus, and if they

0:04:30.960 --> 0:04:34.479
<v Speaker 1>think that he was doing it for racial reasons, then

0:04:34.520 --> 0:04:36.560
<v Speaker 1>he will almost certainly be convicted, So it will be

0:04:36.640 --> 0:04:39.520
<v Speaker 1>a controversial ruling. My prediction is that the judge lets

0:04:39.520 --> 0:04:43.839
<v Speaker 1>that in. He'll probably plead plead out. You mentioned race

0:04:43.920 --> 0:04:47.360
<v Speaker 1>coming in. You have a white man shooting a black

0:04:47.440 --> 0:04:51.279
<v Speaker 1>man in Florida, and you know we've seen this before.

0:04:52.400 --> 0:04:55.359
<v Speaker 1>Is race necessarily going to come in? How will the

0:04:55.440 --> 0:05:02.240
<v Speaker 1>judge try to restrict any mention of it. Well, that's

0:05:02.279 --> 0:05:05.640
<v Speaker 1>a great question, because of course there isn't any at

0:05:05.720 --> 0:05:08.000
<v Speaker 1>least that we've seen in the video. Isn't any evidence

0:05:08.040 --> 0:05:11.360
<v Speaker 1>that race was a factor. They've they've gotten this dispute

0:05:11.400 --> 0:05:14.760
<v Speaker 1>over the parking the parking stall, and I think the

0:05:14.839 --> 0:05:18.920
<v Speaker 1>judge will give provide jury with jury instructions that this

0:05:19.000 --> 0:05:22.880
<v Speaker 1>is not about race unless there's evidence indicating that the

0:05:22.920 --> 0:05:27.440
<v Speaker 1>attack was racially motivated. Again, that kind of evidence would

0:05:27.480 --> 0:05:31.120
<v Speaker 1>be again hugely prejudicial. In other words, the defendant would

0:05:31.160 --> 0:05:33.400
<v Speaker 1>would have no chance of prevailing. So the judge will

0:05:33.440 --> 0:05:37.640
<v Speaker 1>tell the jurors this isn't about race. It's about an

0:05:37.680 --> 0:05:41.200
<v Speaker 1>assault and whether or not the defendant Draco has a

0:05:41.279 --> 0:05:44.120
<v Speaker 1>right to interpose the defense of self defense, and that's

0:05:44.120 --> 0:05:47.159
<v Speaker 1>what you should focus on. He'll tell the jurors. We've

0:05:47.200 --> 0:05:50.880
<v Speaker 1>often discussed the most important question for the defense attorney

0:05:50.880 --> 0:05:52.839
<v Speaker 1>and the defendant during a trial is whether or not

0:05:52.880 --> 0:05:55.279
<v Speaker 1>the defendant is going to take the stand in his

0:05:55.480 --> 0:05:59.800
<v Speaker 1>own defense. How will that factor in here? And with

0:06:00.120 --> 0:06:04.159
<v Speaker 1>him putting forward a self defense argument, does it almost

0:06:04.240 --> 0:06:08.719
<v Speaker 1>force him to have to testify to explain himself? Another

0:06:08.760 --> 0:06:13.520
<v Speaker 1>great question. One would think that in this case he

0:06:13.600 --> 0:06:17.040
<v Speaker 1>has to testify because he doesn't testify, he has no

0:06:17.080 --> 0:06:20.240
<v Speaker 1>way of getting bringing his point of view across. The

0:06:20.320 --> 0:06:23.880
<v Speaker 1>juror is going to focus on his mental processes when

0:06:23.880 --> 0:06:26.440
<v Speaker 1>he pulled the gun and shot, and they need him

0:06:26.440 --> 0:06:29.000
<v Speaker 1>to say I was afraid that I was going to

0:06:29.040 --> 0:06:32.479
<v Speaker 1>be attacked, even though of course the the decedent was

0:06:32.560 --> 0:06:36.120
<v Speaker 1>turning and apparently walking away. But on the other hand,

0:06:36.200 --> 0:06:39.640
<v Speaker 1>if he testifies to that, he will be impeached. The

0:06:39.680 --> 0:06:43.440
<v Speaker 1>prosecutors will ask him about the prior bad acts that

0:06:43.520 --> 0:06:46.840
<v Speaker 1>we just mentioned, and again race will come in, and

0:06:47.120 --> 0:06:50.359
<v Speaker 1>so they defended in this case is in a terrible position,

0:06:50.520 --> 0:06:53.599
<v Speaker 1>is a terrible choice to make, But he would appear

0:06:53.640 --> 0:06:57.000
<v Speaker 1>to have a very tough hill to climb. That was

0:06:57.040 --> 0:06:59.600
<v Speaker 1>my less than a minute here. It seems as if

0:06:59.600 --> 0:07:03.760
<v Speaker 1>it's it's a very difficult uphill battle for the defendant,

0:07:03.760 --> 0:07:08.160
<v Speaker 1>what's his best defense. His best offense is that he

0:07:08.279 --> 0:07:13.720
<v Speaker 1>was shocked by because you could see the assault the

0:07:13.800 --> 0:07:16.960
<v Speaker 1>McLaughlin came out and pushed him down violently, that he

0:07:17.040 --> 0:07:20.679
<v Speaker 1>hit the ground, and he was not thinking clearly because

0:07:20.720 --> 0:07:23.840
<v Speaker 1>he had hit the ground, and so he did what

0:07:23.960 --> 0:07:27.440
<v Speaker 1>he thought at the time to be in his self defense.

0:07:27.600 --> 0:07:30.640
<v Speaker 1>And whether that's reasonable or not, the jury will decide.

0:07:30.640 --> 0:07:32.360
<v Speaker 1>But that's what he's got to claim, is that I

0:07:32.440 --> 0:07:35.960
<v Speaker 1>was stunned by this sudden attack. Right, Thanks so much, George,

0:07:35.960 --> 0:07:39.600
<v Speaker 1>as always for your insights. That's former federal prosecutor George

0:07:39.600 --> 0:07:41.720
<v Speaker 1>Newhouse of THEODOREA boring your