Speaker 1: No one disputes that Michael Draco fatally shot Marcus mcglockton.
Speaker 1: After all, you can see that on the surveillance video
Speaker 1: that ignited a national debate over Florida stand your ground law.
Speaker 1: The question of Draca's manslaughter trial is whether he pulled
Speaker 1: the trigger in fear for his life. Here's what Draco
Speaker 1: told the county Sheriff's in an interview after the shooting.
Speaker 1: I'm thinking he's coming to do the rest of it.
Speaker 1: Did you see him on the fire No, Shara, I
Speaker 1: didn't see him without anything. Okay, what do you mean
Speaker 1: the rest of it? Whatever beating was coming out of that.
Speaker 1: So he thought he was going to be jun So
Speaker 1: you're kidding, Okay, all right? So if he got him,
Speaker 1: he had hard to begin with, from blindside, from the gigo.
Speaker 1: What else should I expect? My guest is from a
Speaker 1: federal prosecutor, George Newhouse at Theodore Oorringer. George explained the
Speaker 1: stand your ground law in Florida. Good good morning, tune at.
Speaker 1: The standard ground law in Florida is an unusual statute.
Speaker 1: It basically provides it a person who is not otherwise
Speaker 1: engaged on lawful activity and who is who isn't a
Speaker 1: place where they have a right to be, and who
Speaker 1: is then attacked, as Draca says, he was attacked here,
Speaker 1: it does not have a duty to retreat if that's
Speaker 1: available to him, and he can stand his ground and
Speaker 1: defend himself indeed with force, which in this case was
Speaker 1: of course, deadly force. The use of deadly force has
Speaker 1: to be reasonable under the circumstances. But the key part
Speaker 1: of that law is under the common law, if you
Speaker 1: were attacked and you had an avenue of escape, you
Speaker 1: could retreat safely, you were required to do that, and
Speaker 1: you will not be able to interpose a defense of
Speaker 1: self defense. So that's the Florida Statute um and that's
Speaker 1: currently in place. So Drake's attorneys told c an End
Speaker 1: that they won't be using standard ground during the trial,
Speaker 1: but instead they'll argue that he acted in self defense.
Speaker 1: How is that different and why wouldn't they use the
Speaker 1: other law. Well, it's an interesting question because the Florida
Speaker 1: Statute has another interesting provision that actually provides for immunity.
Speaker 1: So if you can, if a defendant can show reasonable
Speaker 1: the court reasonable cause that that he was attacked and
Speaker 1: that he responded in the way that he did with
Speaker 1: the force in order to save himself. In some cases
Speaker 1: you can actually convince the judge to throw the criminal
Speaker 1: case out. It doesn't even go to trial. Um. The
Speaker 1: reason why they're probably not using it in this case
Speaker 1: was clearly his only defense is self defense, and I
Speaker 1: don't think the elements of standard ground apply. The man
Speaker 1: was sitting on the ground. He never got up. He
Speaker 1: just took his gun out and he fired it. And
Speaker 1: we heard in that interview with the county sheriffs he
Speaker 1: said he was afraid he was going to get beaten.
Speaker 1: He didn't say that he was afraid for his life.
Speaker 1: Does that make a difference. It makes a huge difference,
Speaker 1: and you you pinpointed on theness in the defense case. Yes.
Speaker 1: In other words, if you're afraid of being beaten or
Speaker 1: even seriously attacked, UM, you do not have the right
Speaker 1: to in any state, including Florida, to use self defense.
Speaker 1: So someone, as in this case, pushes you to the ground,
Speaker 1: you can't just whip out your firearm, which he had
Speaker 1: a legal right to carry, and fire away. You have
Speaker 1: to be concerned or have reason to believe that deadly
Speaker 1: force is coming next. And there's nothing that I've seen
Speaker 1: in the videotape or in the facts that would indicate
Speaker 1: that he had a reasonable concern that his life's either
Speaker 1: life or a serious infliction of dangerous bodily harm or
Speaker 1: protection of others. None of that appears to be the
Speaker 1: case here, So that's his weakness. Prosecutors are going to
Speaker 1: be allowed to call an African American truck driver who
Speaker 1: says that Drake had threatened him and to shoot him
Speaker 1: months earlier in a confrontation over that same parking spot.
Speaker 1: Isn't that very prejudicial? Why would the judge allow that? Well,
Speaker 1: it's not clear that judge will allow it. That kind
Speaker 1: of evidence is called bad prior acts, and generally courts
Speaker 1: exclude bad prior acts for the reason you just mentioned
Speaker 1: you because it is hugely prejudicial. If that evidence is introduced,
Speaker 1: it virtually guarantees of the defendant will be convicted because
Speaker 1: the jury will assume that his actions in this case
Speaker 1: were in accordance with his past, which was he apparently
Speaker 1: had this this thing for this particular parking lot, and
Speaker 1: in fact, they may infer racial animus, and if they
Speaker 1: think that he was doing it for racial reasons, then
Speaker 1: he will almost certainly be convicted, So it will be
Speaker 1: a controversial ruling. My prediction is that the judge lets
Speaker 1: that in. He'll probably plead plead out. You mentioned race
Speaker 1: coming in. You have a white man shooting a black
Speaker 1: man in Florida, and you know we've seen this before.
Speaker 1: Is race necessarily going to come in? How will the
Speaker 1: judge try to restrict any mention of it. Well, that's
Speaker 1: a great question, because of course there isn't any at
Speaker 1: least that we've seen in the video. Isn't any evidence
Speaker 1: that race was a factor. They've they've gotten this dispute
Speaker 1: over the parking the parking stall, and I think the
Speaker 1: judge will give provide jury with jury instructions that this
Speaker 1: is not about race unless there's evidence indicating that the
Speaker 1: attack was racially motivated. Again, that kind of evidence would
Speaker 1: be again hugely prejudicial. In other words, the defendant would
Speaker 1: would have no chance of prevailing. So the judge will
Speaker 1: tell the jurors this isn't about race. It's about an
Speaker 1: assault and whether or not the defendant Draco has a
Speaker 1: right to interpose the defense of self defense, and that's
Speaker 1: what you should focus on. He'll tell the jurors. We've
Speaker 1: often discussed the most important question for the defense attorney
Speaker 1: and the defendant during a trial is whether or not
Speaker 1: the defendant is going to take the stand in his
Speaker 1: own defense. How will that factor in here? And with
Speaker 1: him putting forward a self defense argument, does it almost
Speaker 1: force him to have to testify to explain himself? Another
Speaker 1: great question. One would think that in this case he
Speaker 1: has to testify because he doesn't testify, he has no
Speaker 1: way of getting bringing his point of view across. The
Speaker 1: juror is going to focus on his mental processes when
Speaker 1: he pulled the gun and shot, and they need him
Speaker 1: to say I was afraid that I was going to
Speaker 1: be attacked, even though of course the the decedent was
Speaker 1: turning and apparently walking away. But on the other hand,
Speaker 1: if he testifies to that, he will be impeached. The
Speaker 1: prosecutors will ask him about the prior bad acts that
Speaker 1: we just mentioned, and again race will come in, and
Speaker 1: so they defended in this case is in a terrible position,
Speaker 1: is a terrible choice to make, But he would appear
Speaker 1: to have a very tough hill to climb. That was
Speaker 1: my less than a minute here. It seems as if
Speaker 1: it's it's a very difficult uphill battle for the defendant,
Speaker 1: what's his best defense. His best offense is that he
Speaker 1: was shocked by because you could see the assault the
Speaker 1: McLaughlin came out and pushed him down violently, that he
Speaker 1: hit the ground, and he was not thinking clearly because
Speaker 1: he had hit the ground, and so he did what
Speaker 1: he thought at the time to be in his self defense.
Speaker 1: And whether that's reasonable or not, the jury will decide.
Speaker 1: But that's what he's got to claim, is that I
Speaker 1: was stunned by this sudden attack. Right, Thanks so much, George,
Speaker 1: as always for your insights. That's former federal prosecutor George
Speaker 1: Newhouse of THEODOREA boring your