No one disputes that Michael Draco fatally shot Marcus mcglockton. After all, you can see that on the surveillance video that ignited a national debate over Florida stand your ground law. The question of Draca's manslaughter trial is whether he pulled the trigger in fear for his life. Here's what Draco told the county Sheriff's in an interview after the shooting. I'm thinking he's coming to do the rest of it. Did you see him on the fire No, Shara, I
didn't see him without anything. Okay, what do you mean the rest of it? Whatever beating was coming out of that. So he thought he was going to be jun So you're kidding, Okay, all right? So if he got him, he had hard to begin with, from blindside, from the gigo. What else should I expect? My guest is from a federal prosecutor, George Newhouse at Theodore Oorringer. George explained the stand your ground law in Florida. Good good morning, tune at.
The standard ground law in Florida is an unusual statute. It basically provides it a person who is not otherwise engaged on lawful activity and who is who isn't a place where they have a right to be, and who is then attacked, as Draca says, he was attacked here, it does not have a duty to retreat if that's available to him, and he can stand his ground and defend himself indeed with force, which in this case was of course, deadly force. The use of deadly force has
to be reasonable under the circumstances. But the key part of that law is under the common law, if you were attacked and you had an avenue of escape, you could retreat safely, you were required to do that, and you will not be able to interpose a defense of self defense. So that's the Florida Statute um and that's currently in place. So Drake's attorneys told c an End that they won't be using standard ground during the trial, but instead they'll argue that he acted in self defense.
How is that different and why wouldn't they use the other law. Well, it's an interesting question because the Florida Statute has another interesting provision that actually provides for immunity. So if you can, if a defendant can show reasonable the court reasonable cause that that he was attacked and that he responded in the way that he did with the force in order to save himself. In some cases you can actually convince the judge to throw the criminal
case out. It doesn't even go to trial. Um. The reason why they're probably not using it in this case was clearly his only defense is self defense, and I don't think the elements of standard ground apply. The man was sitting on the ground. He never got up. He just took his gun out and he fired it. And we heard in that interview with the county sheriffs he said he was afraid he was going to get beaten. He didn't say that he was afraid for his life.
Does that make a difference. It makes a huge difference, and you you pinpointed on theness in the defense case. Yes. In other words, if you're afraid of being beaten or even seriously attacked, UM, you do not have the right to in any state, including Florida, to use self defense. So someone, as in this case, pushes you to the ground, you can't just whip out your firearm, which he had a legal right to carry, and fire away. You have to be concerned or have reason to believe that deadly
force is coming next. And there's nothing that I've seen in the videotape or in the facts that would indicate that he had a reasonable concern that his life's either life or a serious infliction of dangerous bodily harm or protection of others. None of that appears to be the
case here, So that's his weakness. Prosecutors are going to be allowed to call an African American truck driver who says that Drake had threatened him and to shoot him months earlier in a confrontation over that same parking spot. Isn't that very prejudicial? Why would the judge allow that? Well, it's not clear that judge will allow it. That kind of evidence is called bad prior acts, and generally courts exclude bad prior acts for the reason you just mentioned
you because it is hugely prejudicial. If that evidence is introduced, it virtually guarantees of the defendant will be convicted because the jury will assume that his actions in this case were in accordance with his past, which was he apparently had this this thing for this particular parking lot, and in fact, they may infer racial animus, and if they think that he was doing it for racial reasons, then he will almost certainly be convicted, So it will be
a controversial ruling. My prediction is that the judge lets that in. He'll probably plead plead out. You mentioned race coming in. You have a white man shooting a black man in Florida, and you know we've seen this before. Is race necessarily going to come in? How will the judge try to restrict any mention of it. Well, that's a great question, because of course there isn't any at least that we've seen in the video. Isn't any evidence
that race was a factor. They've they've gotten this dispute over the parking the parking stall, and I think the judge will give provide jury with jury instructions that this is not about race unless there's evidence indicating that the attack was racially motivated. Again, that kind of evidence would be again hugely prejudicial. In other words, the defendant would would have no chance of prevailing. So the judge will
tell the jurors this isn't about race. It's about an assault and whether or not the defendant Draco has a right to interpose the defense of self defense, and that's what you should focus on. He'll tell the jurors. We've often discussed the most important question for the defense attorney and the defendant during a trial is whether or not the defendant is going to take the stand in his own defense. How will that factor in here? And with him putting forward a self defense argument, does it almost
force him to have to testify to explain himself? Another great question. One would think that in this case he has to testify because he doesn't testify, he has no way of getting bringing his point of view across. The juror is going to focus on his mental processes when he pulled the gun and shot, and they need him to say I was afraid that I was going to be attacked, even though of course the the decedent was turning and apparently walking away. But on the other hand,
if he testifies to that, he will be impeached. The prosecutors will ask him about the prior bad acts that we just mentioned, and again race will come in, and so they defended in this case is in a terrible position, is a terrible choice to make, But he would appear to have a very tough hill to climb. That was my less than a minute here. It seems as if it's it's a very difficult uphill battle for the defendant,
what's his best defense. His best offense is that he was shocked by because you could see the assault the McLaughlin came out and pushed him down violently, that he hit the ground, and he was not thinking clearly because he had hit the ground, and so he did what he thought at the time to be in his self defense. And whether that's reasonable or not, the jury will decide. But that's what he's got to claim, is that I was stunned by this sudden attack. Right, Thanks so much, George,
as always for your insights. That's former federal prosecutor George Newhouse of THEODOREA boring your