The Case(s) Against Schneider: Explained

We represent many families who will be assisting with criminal charges and pursuing civil claims against Jacksonville Dentist Dr. Howard Schneider.  Dr. Schneider has been practicing pediatric dentistry in Jacksonville, Florida for over 40 years.  Recently several victims came forward publicly and created a groundswell, and have alleged Dr. Schneider did the following to their children (ages 3-6 years old):

Was physically abusive of patients, including punching them in the chest, bruising their necks and faces, had staff sit on them to restrain them and more;

Doing procedures while children are strapped down without notice to the parents, strapping down patients when not warranted and restricting parents from being in the room with their children;

Was verbally abusive of patients, telling them to shut up, using expletives like “f—k” to them, telling them they better be good or he will use additional force and apparently telling one child she wouldn’t see her mother again if she didn’t be a good girl;

Conducted multiple unnecessary tooth extractions, caps, crowns and other procedures;

Conducted invasive procedures done without the parent’s knowledge or consent or where parents were completely forbidden from going back with their child;

Conducted dental work such as performing fillings, crowns, and extractions done without the use of anesthesia or without letting it to take effect;

Causing unnecessary harm, cuts and damage to children’s tongues, lips and/or gums, including one case where he split the corners of a child’s mouth further open;

Conducted procedures to maximize insurance proceeds to his office, systematically maximizing medicaid billing and often doing unnecessary or extra dental work and other billing violations / insurance billing issues;

And other violations and breaches which are coming out from hundreds and hundreds of former victims over decade.

There are essentially several ways that Dr. Schneider can be criminal and civilly prosecuted.

Possible criminal charges include:

827.03 – Abuse, aggravated abuse, and neglect of a child.  This covers an intentional act that could reasonably be expected to result in physical or mental injury to a child or a caregiver’s failure or omission to provide a child with the care, supervision, and services necessary to maintain the child’s physical and mental health, including, but not limited to, food, nutrition, clothing, shelter, supervision, medicine, and medical services that a prudent person would consider essential for the well-being of the child, among other things.

409.901-409.9205, 817.234 – Medicaid or insurance abuse or fraud. Abuse is when the provider practices that are inconsistent with generally accepted business or medical practices and that result in an unnecessary cost to the Medicaid program or in reimbursement for goods or services that are not medically necessary or that fail to meet professionally recognized standards for health care or where the recipient practices that result in unnecessary cost to the Medicaid program. Fraud is the intentional deception or misrepresentation made by a person with the knowledge that the deception results in unauthorized benefit to herself or himself or another person. The term includes any act that constitutes fraud under applicable federal or state law.

784.011-784.045, 784.05 – Battery, Culpable Negligence.

And more.

Possible Administrative Violations include:

In addition to other violations, there are allegations which support the following:

466.028 Grounds for disciplinary action; action by the board.—

(1) The following acts constitute grounds for denial of a license or disciplinary action, as specified in s. 456.072(2):

(l) Making deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in or related to the practice of dentistry.

(m) Failing to keep written dental records and medical history records justifying the course of treatment of the patient including, but not limited to, patient histories, examination results, test results, and X rays, if taken.

(n) Failing to make available to a patient or client, or to her or his legal representative or to the department if authorized in writing by the patient, copies of documents in the possession or under control of the licensee which relate to the patient or client.

(o) Performing professional services which have not been duly authorized by the patient or client, or her or his legal representative, except as provided in ss. 766.103 and 768.13.

(s) Being unable to practice her or his profession with reasonable skill and safety to patients by reason of illness or use of alcohol, drugs, narcotics, chemicals, or any other type of material or as a result of any mental or physical condition. In enforcing this paragraph, the department shall have, upon a finding of the State Surgeon General or her or his designee that probable cause exists to believe that the licensee is unable to practice dentistry or dental hygiene because of the reasons stated in this paragraph, the authority to issue an order to compel a licensee to submit to a mental or physical examination by physicians designated by the department. If the licensee refuses to comply with such order, the department’s order directing such examination may be enforced by filing a petition for enforcement in the circuit court where the licensee resides or does business. The licensee against whom the petition is filed shall not be named or identified by initials in any public court records or documents, and the proceedings shall be closed to the public. The department shall be entitled to the summary procedure provided in s. 51.011. A licensee affected under this paragraph shall at reasonable intervals be afforded an opportunity to demonstrate that she or he can resume the competent practice of her or his profession with reasonable skill and safety to patients.

(t) Fraud, deceit, or misconduct in the practice of dentistry or dental hygiene.

(u) Failure to provide and maintain reasonable sanitary facilities and conditions.

(x) Being guilty of incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the minimum standards of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance, including, but not limited to, the undertaking of diagnosis and treatment for which the dentist is not qualified by training or experience or being guilty of dental malpractice. For purposes of this paragraph, it shall be legally presumed that a dentist is not guilty of incompetence or negligence by declining to treat an individual if, in the dentist’s professional judgment, the dentist or a member of her or his clinical staff is not qualified by training and experience, or the dentist’s treatment facility is not clinically satisfactory or properly equipped to treat the unique characteristics and health status of the dental patient, provided the dentist refers the patient to a qualified dentist or facility for appropriate treatment. As used in this paragraph, “dental malpractice” includes, but is not limited to, three or more claims within the previous 5-year period which resulted in indemnity being paid, or any single indemnity paid in excess of $25,000 in a judgment or settlement, as a result of negligent conduct on the part of the dentist.

Finally, civil claims can include:

Intentional torts based on abuse to a minor, professional negligence / medical malpractice, civil battery or assault, false arrest or inappropriate restraint, as well as various forms of fraud, theft and conversion.

The medical malpractice statutes, Chapter 766 of the Florida Statutes, imposes strict pre-suit notice and screening requirements for medical negligence claims. The Florida Supreme Court has read the two definitions of “medical negligence” found in 766.106 and 766.202 together, and concluded that medical negligence claims are claims that arise out of the rendering of, or the failure to render, medical care or services.  While the courts have carved out exceptions of sexual battery as not apart of the rendering of medical services, any injury or harm that comes during the rendering of professional services comes under the medical malpractice act.

Further, in Paulk v. National Medical Enters., 679 So. 2d 1289, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 10045, 21 Fla. L. Weekly D 2105 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 4th Dist. 1996), allegations that the defendants defrauded their patients by extending their hospitalization, without medical necessity, so that they could exhaust available insurance coverage, were held to be subject to medical malpractice law as well.

The test for determining whether a defendant is entitled to the benefit of the pre-suit screening requirements of section 766.106(1), Florida Statutes (1989), is whether the defendant is directly or vicariously liable under the medical negligence standard of care set forth in section 766.102(1). Weinstock v. Groth, 629 So. 2d 835 (Fla. 1993) (citing NME Properties, Inc. v. McCullough, 590 So. 2d 439 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)). Under section 766.106(1)(a), a “claim for medical malpractice” is defined as “a claim arising out of the rendering of, or the failure to render, medical care or services.” The term “medical negligence” is defined in section 766.202(6) to mean “medical malpractice, whether grounded in tort or in contract.”

Further, the courts have said, “Under section 766.202(6), we don’t think it much matters whether the plaintiffs’ claim is framed as an intentional tort or instead as negligence. The legislature was aware of the historical development of the tort. One early theoretical underpinning of claims for medical malpractice was the intentional torts of assault and battery–the departure from the standard of care constituted an unconsented touching of the patient’s body. See, e.g., Pratt v. Davis, 224 Ill. 300, 79 N.E. 562 (1906) (damages for surgery to remove patient’s ovaries without her consent affirmed on theory of trespass 2Link to the text of the note to patient’s body); Birnbaum v. Siegler, 76 N.Y.S. 2d 173, 273 A.D. 817 (1948) (consent to surgery obtained by fraud invalid; surgery so performed constitutes assault on patient).” Paulk v. National Medical Enters., 679 So. 2d 1289, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 10045, 21 Fla. L. Weekly D 2105 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 4th Dist. 1996).

We hope all of the victims will consult with a professional medical malpractice lawyer.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Parade – – January 19, 2015 – – Jacksonville, Florida


We invite our clients, friends and supporters to join us on January 19, 2015, as we walk in the Parade honoring the life of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.  Please RSVP by emailing and let us know who is coming.

What are we doing?

Ron Davis, the fa10915211_1058833680809842_6210152138165362972_nther of Jordan Davis is a guest of the MLK Parade. He will be riding in a convertible.  After Ron, we are bringing the law office Boom Box and the families of Jordan Davis, Brandon Green and Leo Little (among possible others) will be walking with the attorneys and some staff from our office.

We have thousands of memorial wristbands to give out, as well as koozies.

Where to Meet?

We will meet in Lot J of the Everbank Field football facility.  However, you cannot park at that facility.  And you cannot drive your own car in the parade.  You must walk it or ride with us.

You have two parking options – Parking for parade participants is at the Prime Osborn.  you can then get a shuttle to the stadium.  You must be with us at the staging area in Section A of lot J stadium by 8:30 AM.

Here is the shuttle information:



We will be meeting at my office located at 4230 Ortega Blvd., Jacksonville, Florida, at 7:15 AM.  Do not be late.  We will be leaving by 7:30 AM.  Some will be going to the Prime Osborn.   Some will be going with the boombox and Ron’s car to the parade route.  We will meet up before 8:30 at section A of lot J.





If a car is dropping you off at the stadium, they must drop off at Lot D:





The Parade starts at 10:00 AM.  We are in the front so need to be ready to go, without distraction, by 9:30.  Here is the Parade Route:





It is a little bit of a walk.  You can always stop if you want along the way.  Wear comfortable shoes and clothes.  It is supposed to be sunny, but chilly.



After the parade, some will go home and some will assemble at the Landing to support Ron and others speaking.  We have a little tent there.



Please review the rules for the Parade.




Facebook’s Facial Recognition Feature – Big Brother is Watching and Storing


67919A23-03F0-4ABD-8152-2D440A77B8CDFacebook is scanning over 100 million photos per day, as its users upload photos and “tag” (or associate names with the people depicted) those photos.  Computers are refining algorithms and learning your face.  Automatic face recognition is becoming advanced and Facebook is making it a larger part of the Facebook experience.  Imagine taking a photo of a STRANGER and learning his/her name, age and address within SECONDS.  It’s coming… as are WILD LEGAL ISSUES.  As always, it is fine to embrace technology, but always be smart and cautious of issues that could arise from it.

AC684E87-FE1A-45B0-A82F-68FADE2DC3ECThe warning first came from Facebook’s rival, Google.  Eric Schmidt served as Google’s CEO from 2001 until recently.  He claims Google created “face recognition” technology and stopped progressing with it because of concerns. Why?  He said Google wanted to be a “DO NO EVIL” company and considers the moral impact of its inventions.  He described the facial recognition software as “creepy” and “potentially harmful.” Wow, strong words, especially from a company that has a car running around nearly every city in the United States filming “street views” of exactly what our homes look like.

He said:

“If you imagine, for example, what a perfectly executing evil dictator would do with all this technology — complete supervision, complete tracking, and so forth — and then you imagine what the dissident in that society would do, using the very best encryption tools and so forth, unfortunately you conclude that exactly the same tools are the ones that would be used by terrorists against an open society.”

He also suggested some company will “cross that line.”  Clearly, he knew that company would be Google’s rival, Facebook, and the internet giant has come close to doing just that.  Of course, you have to look at some of the dramatics as “business puffery.”  However, Facebook’s version of facial recognition software has examined over 23 Billion photos over the past few years.  It continues to review billions and Facebook is allowed to collect information per its user disclaimers- even metadata- the hidden stuff like GPS and dates in your photos.

4EFDC71C-4278-4BAB-A20C-855D3C7BDD40Facebook has and will continuously advance its “Tag Suggestions” features, using facial recognition technology to speed up the process of labeling friends and acquaintances that appear in photos posted on Facebook.  This is made easier as the computer database “learns” the faces from the billions of photos in its system.  However, experts say that faces are not so different and technology is not yet at the point where it can pick out faces, with consistency, in more than a small ratio.  In other words, don’t expect Facebook or any other company to be able to automatically associate your face with your name outside of comparing it to just a few hundred others.  But that is the next step.

4F75721E-8085-4D0B-B206-2BEB94A78AB3The technology has raised eyebrows in some circles.  Some allege Facebook is invading rights with its failures to disclose that it is (and has been) using face recognition software to advance “tagging” to the next level, which for some will make sharing photos very simply and almost immediate.  Facebook has countered these claims noting that the photo-tagging suggestions are only made to newly added photos, that only friends are suggested and that users can disable the feature in their privacy settings.  Right now, it is harmless enough and a pretty exceptional technology… unless you think about it at the level Eric Schmidt thought about it.

500 to 800 million users, the ability to collect data on each and every member, the ability to “map” each user’s face (as well as the faces of non-Facebook friends) and geographically sort these based on location of upload or other tags and, well, you begin to raise privacy issues.

There is little law on the books or on the horizon.  Eric Schmidt says he expects LAWS WILL FOLLOW the technology.  He urged lawmakers to hold off and see how advances developed instead of preemptively overreacting and stifling technology. We agree, but there is grave need for monitoring and legislating to protect abusive use of this data.

Add just a little advancement in the technology or rogue software using it and one could easily see a situation where Facebook, or facial recognition, begins to intercede with reality.  How?  A guy sees a cute girl on the street and snaps a quick photo of her on his smart phone.  Within seconds, the algorithm gives him a few local choices, he picks the best match and has her name and other information right at hand- creepy and an invasion of privacy.  What if a criminal noticed her in a store buying a nice item or withdrawing money at a bank?  That same photo could lead to information that could lead to the opening up of a network of information whereby the crook could click his way all the way to her home address.  It’s not that unrealistic and is the next step of concerns.  It ends with a system whereby we all can be digitally identified more easily and privacy further fades into the past.

I criticize Facebook’s decision to automatically enable the facial-recognition technology for Facebook users, rather than allow them to OPT-IN.  Further, Facebook needs to protect and make sure no information is available to the public from its computer database and that other applications and software cannot tap into it.  In fact, it probably shouldn’t be “studying” faces of those who have opted out.




Check your privacy settings if you want to opt-out of this feature.  You do so at the screen above.  Stay tuned for more updates as we learn more about this interesting issue.

Facebook Privacy Policy – Your Posts “Opting Out” Don’t Matter

facebook_privacy_comic_brian_farrington Every few months, someone crafts a post or reposts an idea and it takes off with viral contagion. Essentially, the Facebook poster posts that he or she is “reserving,” “protecting” or “claiming” rights to material (photos, posts, etc.) he or she published to Facebook.

One problem- it is legally insignificant. 

Although Facebook isn’t actually claiming a specific copyright to your personal information, photographs, and other material that their users are posting to the social network, it does claim rights to use this material.  It can’t sell your photos as art or use plagiarize your words in its own book, but its invasion is much deeper.  Facebook certainly has rights to use, collect, store and even sell any information you provide (or provided by others about you) according to the license (aka contract) you entered into with Facebook.  It is like the information on the back of your ticket you receive at a parking lot, dry cleaner, sporting event or the like.  You may not have ever read it, but it is your contract and entirely enforceable.

A post “opting out” is therefore waste of time and meaningless. The terms you agreed to when you signed up for a Facebook account are non-negotiable on your end and you basically signed your digital life away.  Facebook is watching what you do and stockpiling information about you.  It is simply unavoidable unless you leave.  Even then, some of the harm has already been done.

If you want to know what Facebook can and cannot do, take an hour and read the Terms (a.k.a Statement of Rights and Responsibilities) and the Data Use Policy.

Facebook-PrivacyToo lazy, but still want to be freaked out?  You agreed to basically allow facebook to analyze the visible data of that which you post, but also analyze the hidden metadata of items you upload, such as the time, date, and place you took the photo or video- things you don’t even know are there.  It also collects information about the date and time you visit many websites, including the web address, technical information about the IP address, browser and the operating system you use; and more.  Facebook also knows your GPS coordinates at pretty much any given moment.  All user submitted content, even that which you don’t know you are submitting such as meta-data and cookies, is shared with the government and other businesses. It is the sacrifice for it being a free site enjoyed by 100s of millions.

And it is not just you.  Your friends can tag you and your face.  With a couple photos tagged, Facebook’s facial recognition feature can pick you out of crowds.  That information often remains on a computer even if you delete your account.  You allowed this by having an account.  More about facial recognition is located HERE.

The only way to remedy that is to terminate your license and get off Facebook forever. So, there you go.  This post is SNOPES tested and approved.





Thrown Out of Court: Aiden Patrick (deceased, 4-years-old) v. Volusia County

Judge Rouse Throws Out Case Against Volusia County


Two Four Year Old Children Killed in 2010 on Volusia Beaches

Before Erin Joynt was run over on Volusia beaches by a lifeguard, a pair of 4 year old children were killed on the beach.  They were run over by citizen vehicular traffic, as Volusia County has a longstanding tradition of allowing people to operate vehicles on the beach.

Aiden Patrick, the 4-year-boy struck and killed on July 18, 2010, was struck by a truck.  His parents filed a wrongful-death lawsuit against the county and driver of the truck. Continue reading

Red Bull Class Action Settlement – Submit a Claim Form and Get $10… next year

Red Bull LawsuitClick here to file a Claim Form online

What is a Class Action?

A class action is a lawsuit in which a person sues another party on behalf of all other people who are in a similar position. The individuals who actually bring the lawsuit are referred to as the Class Representatives, while all of the other people who are in a similar position as the Class Representatives are referred to as the Class or Class Members.

You usually see them when corporate America has gone too far, promised too much, delivered too little or had a problem with a good or service many people bought or used.

We are not affiliated with this class action lawsuit.

Me v. Red Bull?

Sometimes class actions can be a little silly or frivolous.  You can read the Complaints made against Red Bull, the energy drink here, as this one is a little of both:

Plaintiffs brought these lawsuits, alleging that Red Bull’s Marketing and labeling misrepresents both the functionality and safety of Red Bull beverages- basically over the marketing campaign saying Red Bull “gives you wings.”  Fact is- you will neither grow wings now will it is much more than little boost.  It provides no more energy than a cup of coffee or a caffeine pill, according to the lawsuit.

Red Bull denies any and all wrongdoing or liability, and maintain that its marketing and labeling have always been truthful and accurate.

Do I Receive Money?

If you have consumed a Red Bull in the last 12 years, yes.  It is on the honor system. The Settlement Class includes all persons who made at least one purchase of Red Bull products in the United States between January 1, 2002 and October 3, 2014.

How Do I Receive Money?

If you are a qualified Settlement Class Member and submit a Claim Form, you may choose to receive one of the following two benefit options:

  1. A cash reimbursement (in the form of a check) of $10.00; or
  2. Free Red Bull products (either Red Bull ® Energy Drink or Red Bull ® Sugarfree, as selected on the Claim Form) with a retail value of approximately $15.00 (the “Product Option”).

Complete Claim Form Here:

These pages haven’t been working, so you can Complete this – Long Form Notice.

And then WAIT a YEAR!

The Court will hold a hearing on May 1, 2015 at 10:00 a.m. to decide whether to approve the settlement. If the Court approves the settlement, after that there may be appeals. Payments will be distributed within 150 days after the Court grants final approval of the settlement, pending any appeals.

So it may be a year before you get your $10.  No interest.

Want More info:

wings lawsuitContact:

Energy Drink Settlement
c/o GCG
P.O. Box 35123
Seattle, WA 98124-5123

Toll-Free: 877- 495-1568


We invite you to review our verdicts, our accolades and awards, what clients have to say about us and to give us a call for a free consultation. Our lawyers will sit down with you personally. John represents clients in Florida, Georgia and Alabama with passion and compassion and is a Board Certified Expert in Civil Trial Law according to the Florida Bar.




If injury or trouble finds you, call us at 904-444-4444 .

5 Myths About the Michael Dunn Trial for the Murder of Jordan Davis

Myth #5.  The trial is a waste of taxpayer money because Dunn is already going to serve life in prison.

Michael Dunn was convicted by a jury of three counts of attempted murder and one count of shooting into a occupied vehicle.  Upon sentencing, Dunn faces a POTENTIAL minimum of 60 years in prison.  However, these convictions are fully subject to an appeal.  Michael Dunn’s appellate clock starts only after Dunn is sentenced and the judgment becomes final.  Cory Strolla has indicated a desire to appeal the prior trial based on certain evidentiary and procedural rulings.  No verdict is appellate proof- especially in criminal prosecutions, as the right of the criminal defendant to a fair trial, and whether that happened, is something the courts scrutinize.  Further, there were some key rulings in the first trial excluding or allowing witnesses and evidence which could be given a secondary look.

If Dunn is found guilty in a separate proceeding, defended by a separate lawyer, the odds that at least one of the two guilty verdicts is upheld drastically increase, which completely eliminates losing one judgment to appeal and Dunn going free. This trial is significant.

Myth #4.  Stand Your Ground has “NOTHING” to do with this trial.

People like to say “Stand Your Ground” has “NOTHING” to do with this trial. They are referring strictly to the immunity statute, which allows a Defendant to affirmatively seek immunity in cases of self defense.  Section 776.012, Florida Statutes, states:

A person is justified in using or threatening to use force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. A person who uses or threatens to use force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat before using or threatening to use such force.

(2) A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be.

And Section 776.032, Florida Statutes, holds:

A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
The enactment of Stand Your Ground laws did more than merely add immunity from prosecution.  It took away a duty to retreat in public and empowered one’s subjective fear to entitle lethal action to be taken.

Make no mistake, Stand Your Ground empowered Dunn and gave him the right to kill- if only in his own mind.  He did not have to retreat and could use irrational and unreasonable facts to support use of lethal force.  Stand Your Ground laws caused Jordan’s murder.

Further, the jury instructions carry Stand Your Ground’s entitlement to kill all the way through a trial.  Before deliberations, a jury is read:

If (Defendant) was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

This is far different from the jury instruction read to Florida juries BEFORE the legislature’s enactment of Stand Your Ground:

The defendant cannot justify the use of force likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless he used every reasonable means within his power and consistent with his own safety to avoid the danger before resorting to that force. The fact that the defendant was wrongfully attacked cannot justify his use of force likely to cause death or great bodily harm if by retreating he could have avoided the need to use that force.

Let’s not pretend that this law does not devalue human life.

Myth #3.  Jordan Davis was out of the vehicle

Not one single person saw Jordan out of the vehicle that night, except Michael Dunn, despite several witnesses who looked towards the car.  The evidence is clear based on the trajectory of the bullets that Jordan Davis never left the vehicle.  The lack of property damage to either vehicle entirely contradicts Davis was out of the vehicle.  The trajectory of the bullet holes are consistent with the testimony that Jordan was fully in the vehicle.  ALL of this evidence is completely inconsistent with Davis being out of the vehicle.

Myth #2.  The vehicle Jordan Davis was in left the scene for a prolonged period of time.

Michael Dunn fired 3 shots while the Dodge Durango was stationary, killing Jordan.  Dunn fired three shots while the vehicle was backing up, just missing Tevin.  Dunn missed the vehicle and then got out of his vehicle and landed three more shots into the back of the fleeing vehicle, just missing the driver’s head. He was intending to kill everyone in that car.  If the occupants had stayed there, they would all have been killed at close range.

The Durango drove approximately 100 yards and was stopped for a matter of seconds to a few minutes while the front seat occupants got out to check on the rear occupants.  At all times, witnesses around the area on the busy Black Friday observed the boys.  There was a cop in the immediate area doing a DUI stop.  The boys immediately also called 911 from the parking lot.

They never left the immediate area and only left the gas station to avoid getting shot and killed. Despite this, some want to characterize the boys as having left the overall scene.  Let’s not forget that it was Dunn who never called police, fled the scene and was only found because a good Samaritan captured his tag number.

Myth #1.  Michael Dunn cannot be convicted of murder in the first degree / Angela Corey overcharged Michael Dunn.

There are two ways in which a person may be convicted of first degree murder.  One is known as premeditated murder and the other is known as felony murder.

To prove the crime of First Degree Premeditated Murder, the State must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

  1. Jordan Davis is dead. (UNDISPUTED)
  2. The death was caused by the criminal act of Michael Dunn.  (UNDISPUTED)
  3. There was a premeditated killing of Jordan Davis.

So, let’s look at the word, “premeditated.”  According to the Standard Jury instructions which are the law of Florida:

“Killing with premeditation” is killing after consciously deciding to do so.  The decision must be present in the mind at the time of the killing.  The law does not fix the exact period of time that must pass between the formation of the premeditated intent to kill and the killing.  The period of time must be long enough to allow reflection by the defendant.  The premeditated intent to kill must be formed before the killing.

The question of premeditation is a question of fact to be determined by you from the evidence.  It will be sufficient proof of premeditation if the circumstances of the killing and the conduct of the accused convince you beyond a reasonable doubt of the existence of premeditation at the time of the killing.

Michael Dunn said, “you are not going to talk to me like that,” reached 4-5 feet for his gun, opened his glove box, pulled out his gun, took his gun out of its holster, pointed it directly at the center mass of Jordan Davis and fired it three times, then fired it 4 more times, then got out of his car and fired it three more times.  There was an intent to kill Jordan Davis and Dunn’s expression plus his actions gave time for forethought enough for a jury to decide whether this was 1st Degree Murder or a lesser charge.

A grand jury indicted Michael Dunn for first degree murder.  As such, this was not merely Angela Corey deciding to seek 1st Degree Murder.

CONCLUSION: Justice has not yet been done.

Michael Dunn still has a chance to appeal the prior verdict, he was merely found guilty of attempted murder (not murder) despite actually ending Jordan Davis’ life that night and Jordan Davis’ life mattered.  Jordan Davis was murdered.  Justice has not yet been done.

We invite you to review our verdicts, our accolades and awards, what clients have to say about us and to give us a call for a free consultation. Our lawyers will sit down with you personally. John represents clients in Florida, Georgia and Alabama with passion and compassion and is a Board Certified Expert in Civil Trial Law according to the Florida Bar.




If injury or trouble finds you, call us at 904-444-4444 .

Jacksonville, Florida Civil Rights Law Firm Fights Police Misconduct

This page has been moved to We apologize for the inconvenience.

We invite you to review our verdicts, our accolades and awards, what clients have to say about us and to give us a call for a free consultation. Our lawyers will sit down with you personally. John represents clients in Florida, Georgia and Alabama with passion and compassion and is a Board Certified Expert in Civil Trial Law according to the Florida Bar.




If injury or trouble finds you, call us at 904-444-4444 .



Florida Lawyers Protect People from Unsafe Premises

This post has been moved to Sorry for the inconvenience!


We invite you to review our verdicts, our accolades and awards, what clients have to say about us and to give us a call for a free consultation. Our lawyers will sit down with you personally. John represents clients in Florida, Georgia and Alabama with passion and compassion and is a Board Certified Expert in Civil Trial Law according to the Florida Bar.




If injury or trouble finds you, call us at 904-444-4444 .