the eye opener to this whole thing for me was the jury was split for a couple of days. And it wasn’t racism. It was 2 different sets of personal experiences with both sides never bothering to let go of their own beliefs to try and understand what the other side was feeling or seeing in the whole situation. We all need to get along to get along and putting yourself in someone elses shoes means you have to empty your mind if your own beliefs and really really relax and listen to what someone esle is saying. Black folks from rural areas are used to some things white folks never experience and white folks from white neighborhoods never had to deal with a black person whos gone off the rails. Black jurers saw this as mostly normal waving a gun around when theres drugs and money involved and figured the guy didnt mean to kill his friend. Theres a guy who killed his best friend by doing something totally stupid. Blacks dont want this guy running free. but theydont see the death penalty as necessary in the case of ann over reaction to a challenge from the deceased. They see the dead mans family and the killers family seeing the whole situation move along to a sad conclusion. whites on the jury saw the whole thing in reverse. A man is dead, lets find the killer and question him, have a trial and then we’ll decide what to do with the murderer. It wasnt racism, it was 2 different ways of looki g at the whole.
This is clear cut murder, but its not first degree murder... not sure of the state statutes, but showing wanton disregard for human life is murder in most states..
If the prosecution went for first degree murder, then they probably overplayed their hand... Honestly given the facts of this case, if the defendant had a half way decent lawyer, should have worked a plea deal for lesser murder charge or manslaughter, and never seen a court room.
If a reasonable deal was offered, and the defendant decided to take his chances at trial, then he probably was given very bad advice.