Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Mr. Mojo

Not the whole story. He was charged with murder, which in South Carolina requires “malice aforethought, either express or implied’. The prosecution couldn’t prove malice. They should have added additional charges to cover all their bases.


19 posted on 11/23/2021 8:52:14 AM PST by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: DoodleDawg
Not the whole story. He was charged with murder, which in South Carolina requires “malice aforethought, either express or implied’. The prosecution couldn’t prove malice. They should have added additional charges to cover all their bases.

Found this "opinion" piece from Jeff Stephens, Dunham's defense attorney is his post election statement on the verdict:

In their verdict of “Not Guilty,” the jury, consisting of seven black jurors and five white jurors, found that the prosecution had failed to meet their burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intended to harm Mr. Stevens when he shot his pistol towards Mr. Stevens’ moving vehicle. Because Mr. Dunham was not charged with any other offenses and the Solicitor’s Office did not directly indict Dunham for any other or lesser offense, the jury could not consider and give a verdict on any other possible offenses. Mr. Dunham was later released.

I still don't understand how the jury could have reached a not guilty verdict.

40 posted on 11/24/2021 8:38:55 AM PST by Perseverando (Antifa, BLM, RINOs, Islamonazis, Marxists, Commucrats, DemoKKKrats: It's a Godlessness disorder!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson