himself, dressed in armor to avoid being killed himself when he carried out this attack, to the calm way he went into he bought a ticket, went into the theater, made the display of sort of using a cell phone to get to the door that he then ultimately propped open so he could come back in armed and open fire almost exactly three years ago. it was so meticulously planned, the prosecution argued, that this was someone who did know the difference of right from wrong and that s obviously what the jury sided with. the reason this trial took so long to actually go to trial was because of a series of legal battles over whether he was fit to stand trial. does the defense now have recourse in terms of appeals on the decision that he was in fact fit? reporter: well, we don t know yet what the grounds for appeal will be, but it s a fair bet there will be lots of them. colorado does not have much of a
all of his purchases of the weapons and the explosives and everything that he did, the fact that he armed he armored himself, dressed in armor to avoid being killed himself when he carried out this attack, to the calm way he went into he bought a ticket, went into the theater, made the display of sort of using a cell phone to get to the door that he then ultimately propped open so he could come back in armed and open fire almost exactly three years ago. it was so meticulously planned, the prosecution argued, that this was someone who did know the difference of right from wrong and that s obviously what the jury sided with. the reason this trial took so long to actually go to trial was because of a series of legal battles over whether he was fit to stand trial. does the defense now have recourse in terms of appeals on the decision that he was in fact fit? reporter: well, we don t know yet what the grounds for appeal will be, but it s a fair bet
retrial prospects? well, i don t see any grounds for appeal. most of the jury questions were agreed to by both sides, and the answers were fairly obvious. so i don t see grounds for appeal. maybe there s something when a good attorney combs over it, but i don t see anything. the prosecution has said they are going to retry the case. angela corey, the lead prosecutor, the state attorney, has said she s going to retry him for first-degree murder. i think that s a big mistake. premeditation is an issue that everybody got hung up on. the jury came back with second-degree attempted murder. they could agree on that. so i say retry him for second-degree murder. i think that would provide the accountability. and don t make the case too hard for the prosecutors to win. i think this prosecutor but lisa, did the jury have an option of returning second-degree murder? yes, they did. the options they had were first-degree, second-degree, third-degree, or manslaughter. so why then why the
to say with the appeal right now but anytime a jury is out for 32 hours there s likely going to be some areas for appellate attorneys to look at and argue that the jury instructions weren t good or some of the juror questions there were eight of them were not answered properly. as for the retrial, one of the more interesting things, and we just heard ron davis kind of allude to it in his commentary-s we really didn t get to know jordan davis at all during the trial. someone made the point to me, the prosecutors acknowledged he had a big mouth, but no one really told you stories about him. you never saw his baby pictures. his parents didn t really talk about him. and a lot of people think the prosecutors made a mistake with that, that we learned a lot about michael dunn but we learned almost nothing about jordan davis. lisa bloom, what s your reading of the defense appeal prospects and the prosecution s retrial prospects? well, i don t see any grounds for appeal. most of the jur
judge gave in court, you got in it, rocked back and forth, jumped up and down. how would you describe what was done in that boat? we tried rocking it. one them was standing one person was standing up, and another person was kneeling. i was the person kneeling. we were trying to show what was the buoyancy. we were also direct that realized the boat was not in the water, and that the situation the reaction would be different. we took that into account. we said we understood that, acknowledged that. peterson s attorney argues that the jury s experiment in the boat is yet another grounds for appeal. jim, i want to start with you. we know the jury sometimes takes field trips, checks things out. how unusual was this boat experiment? well, like like you said, lg at it is one thing, but i remember being that day, and eight years, this is a problem