Recently served on a jury for a second-degree murder case that involved a DGU

Be forewarned, this is going to be a long post. I recently served on a jury for a second degree murder case that was tried in federal court. Because the case involved defensive use of a firearm, I thought /r/CCW might be interested in a write up.SummonsThe initial summons I received in the mail did not have any details about the case. I went online, acknowledged the summons, and filled out a five minute questionnaire. A few days later I got an email telling me to be on the lookout for an information packet that would be sent from the judge’s assistant. I was mailed a decently sized questionnaire packet, along with a description of the case.The description stated that the incident happened on an Indian Reservation, and the defendant was being charged with two crimes:​Second degree murder. The government alleges that the defendant shot the victim with malice aforethought, or reckless disregard for human life.Use of a firearm during a crime of violence resulting in death.The judge’s questionnaire was much more in depth than the one on the juror website. It had a lot of personality questions, stuff like “What are your top three favorite books?” A few days after sending it in, I got an automated call from the court telling me I was going to have to report in.Voir dire70 people reported for the jury selection. We all were sat in the courtroom, with the judge, defense attorneys, prosecutors, and defendant present. For about two hours, the judge asked questions, with instructions for us to raise our hand if the question applied to us.Some examples:-Do you believe it’s morally wrong for anyone but an Indian to judge another Indian for something that happened on their tribal land?-Have you heard any details about this case in the news?-Are you or is anyone in your family a member of law enforcement?-Have you ever been the victim of a violent crime?-Do you have any biases against Indians that would affect your ability to make an impartial decision?I did not raise my hand for any of the questions. Fourteen of us were picked. A jury is twelve, but they need two alternate jurors to sit through the trial as well. Trial started immediately after we were selected.Start of trialThis is where we actually were able to start getting a picture of what happened during the incident. The 18 year old defendant had been out working the family’s ice cream truck, when a heavily intoxicated man (the victim), approached him and asked for free product. The defendant refused, and the victim became belligerent, making verbal threats such as “I’m gonna kill you, you better watch your back, I’m gonna fuckin shoot you”, etc. Defendant asked him to leave, which the victim eventually did.Defendant stays parked in the same lot, and as he’s serving a customer ~10 minutes later, he sees the victim walking back up to the truck from about 200 feet behind. He tells the girl he’s serving “hey, go back into your house. This guy was causing trouble before and I think he’s on something. He might be dangerous” She does run back into her house and the victim keeps approaching the truck until hes right at the rear bumper, at which point he ducks out of sight.At this point the defendant grabs his father’s revolver which was in the ice cream truck, and goes outside to see that the guy is doing. This results in another verbal standoff, with the victim making threats as the defendant holds the gun at his side. The victim begins to walk towards the defendant while the defendant walks backwards. As the defendant tries to walk back into the ice cream truck, the victim takes a fast aggressive step at him. Defendant fires one round in the victim’s face which ended up being fatal.The prosecutor's arguments:-Shooting an unarmed person is murder. The victim had no weapons on him at the time of the shooting, which shows the defendant’s reckless regard for human life.-The defendant being 5’11” and 300 pounds should’ve been able to handle an unarmed aggressor who was 5’7” and 175 pounds.-The defendant had introduced a firearm to a situation where that had been no weapons in the first place. If the gun had not been introduced, no one would have died.-The defendant had time to call the police in between the two encounters with the victim (span of about 15 minutes).-The defendant had enough time to start the truck and drive away when he saw the victim walking in his direction the second time.The defense’s arguments:-The defendant was in fear for his life, and reacted accordingly.-Based on the previous threats the victim made, the defendant believed the victim had left to retrieve a weapon which could very well be concealed on his person.-The defendant was not legally required to call the police in between the two incidents, or drive the truck away when he saw the victim walking up the second time.-By telling the girl he was serving to leave the area, he was legitimately concerned that there was a dangerous individual approaching, which shows he did not have a reckless disregard for human life.-It is completely possible to be beaten to death by someone who does not have a weapon.Witnesses-Medical Examiner: Mostly gave information about the gunshot wound. Biggest takeaway from his testimony was the victim had a BAC level of over .25 at time of death.-Responding officer: No big takeaways from his testimony, except that the defendant was cooperative when taken into custody. We did get to view his body cam footage.-Woman1: Was with the victim earlier in the day. Gave insight to his level of intoxication, as they had been drinking all day together.Woman2: Was being served at the ice cream truck when the victim approached the second time. Corroborated that the defendant urged her to go to the safety of her house.Tribal police officer: Had many encounters with the victim over the years. Testified that it was his opinion that the victim was a very dangerous and unstable individual, who could hurt someone without a weapon. He recounted a fight he had with the victim that required multiple officers to control.Tribal corrections officer: Had many encounters with the victim over the years. Testified that it was his opinion that the victim was a very dangerous and unstable individual.DeliberationAfter the two alternate jurors were randomly selected to go home, we deliberated for 7 hours over the span of two days. Initial vote was 7 not guilty, 5 guilty. 3 of the guilty voters switched over to not guilty by the end of the first day, putting us at 10-2 in favor of not guilty going into the second day.The two guilty voters each had an issue they were struggling with: 1. Shooting an unarmed person can *never* be considered self-defense. 2. The defendant had multiple opportunities to escape the situation before it turned deadly. After sleeping on it, #1 changed her mind, putting it at 11-1 at the start of the second day. Eventually #2 turned to not guilty, although making it clear his opinion was the defendant still had culpability, even if it didn’t amount to second degree murder.ThoughtsAs someone who has carried every day for the past 8 years, this whole experience was pretty eye opening. So much of my focus goes into little issues like bullet grain weight, DA/SA or DAO, which extended slide stop to buy….. I never gave serious thought to what can happen after a shooting as far as the legal side. I just kind of assumed if I was ever put in a deadly force situation, it would be so obvious that I was a good guy acting in the right, and there’s no way I could ever end up in a court room. After this trial I’m not so sure (though I do feel confident I would’ve handled this situation much differently). After that first day of trial, I could barely sleep. I felt so strongly that this guy was being railroaded, and was so relieved when the other jurors agreed during deliberation.When I got the summons and the very brief case description, I expected the guy to be 100% guilty. After all he’s being charged with murder right? There was a subconscious bias right off the bat just from hearing what they were charging him with! Pair that with the amount of people who have a strong mentally that all defendants are guilty…. It’s kind of scary.Also just because I know some will be curious, weapon was a Ruger SP101 3” .357 magnum, loaded with Remington Golden Sabers. via /r/CCW http://bit.ly/2QuBruV