What was the actual story anyway? I heard there was a first trial but no verdict was reached. Does anyone know why? This seemed fundamentally different from the Zimmerman case in that it seemed pretty obvious from the start that Michael Dunn was guilty of manslaughter at the very least and should have been immediately arrested and charged with that. Are there key facts that have been overlooked in my understanding?
As in the Zimmerman Case, LegalInsurrection.com has been on this trial, minute by minute.
Dunn returned to his car, got in, reached across the seat, opened the glove box, removed a handgun, chambered a round, and began shooting.
The question for the jury was whether the time involved in that - including Dunn's decision to return to the car for the handgun - evidenced the premeditation required for First Degree Murder.
The jury appears to have been deadlocked on this point.