Hey folks,
The jury returned verdicts of not guilty on all charges last night in the murder trial of Curtis Reeves, the retired Tampa SWAT Captain who shot and killed Chad Oulson in a local movie theater in January 2014 after the two men had a verbal altercation that became physical.
I do not predict verdicts, but this finding of not guilty was consistent with my legal analysis of the case, as discussed first within days of the shooting, all the way through to my analysis shared with all of you yesterday.
I covered the reading of the verdict last in real-time, including nearly three hours of post-verdict commentary, so I’m going to keep today’s written content brief and simply embed the reading of the verdict, and link to the video of my lengthier commentary.
Before I do that, once again many thanks to the sponsor of my coverage of this trial, CCW Safe, without whose support I’d never have been able to invest the weeks of 15 hour days required to cover this trial in the comprehensive manner needed.
CCWSAFE
http://lawofselfdefense.com/ccwsafe
10% discount code: LOSD10
LAST DAY 70% OFF Hardcover “Law of Self Defense: Principles” AUTOGRAPHED!
Also, as this is the last day of my ongoing coverage of the Curtis Reeves trial, it is also the last day we’re offering hardcover copies of our best-selling book, “The Law of Self Defense: Principles,” for 70% off the normal price. You can take advantage of that offer today, for the last time, by pointing your browser to http://lawofselfdefense.com/hardsale
So, without further ado, here’s my roughly 2.5 hours of coverage of the reading of the verdict, and you’ll find the link to the lengthy post-verdict discussion by pointing your browser to http://lawofselfdefense.com/popcornverdict
Closing Arguments & Jury Instructions
Finally, I do speak critically about the closing arguments of both the prosecution and defense in this trial. I’m not going to comment on those hours of closing arguments in detail here, you can instead look to my critique in the lengthy post-verdict coverage video at http://lawofselfdefense.com/verdict. For purposes of completeness, however, I’ll embed the video of the closing arguments here. I’ve also embedded the video of the reading of the final jury instructions to the jury, moments before they began deliberations.
State Closing Argument
Defense Closing Argument
State Rebuttal
Jury Instructions
OK, folks, that wraps it up for me on the Curtis Reeves trial, at least for the time being. I wish you all a safe and enjoyable weekend, and I’ll be back next week with ongoing blog posts, videos, and podcast content from Law of Self Defense.
Until then, remember:
Remember
You carry a gun so you’re hard to kill.
Know the law so you’re hard to convict.
Stay safe!
–Andrew
Attorney Andrew F. Branca
Law of Self Defense LLC
Law of Self Defense Platinum Protection Program
Great coverage! Thank you. Admittedly, I haven’t watched or read everything you’ve posted on this, but I am left wondering what took this EIGHT years to get to trial?
Also, you commented on the poor closing arguments by both sides. I’ve seen trials in which attorneys have made highly technical legal arguments and the jury was (and in one case, the judge) nearly falling asleep. And, I’ve seen cases where the attorney, usually the defense, was concise in explaining the law, was animated, even entertaining, to the point where the jury was alert and nodding in agreement with the attorney.
I watched the closing arguments of the Derek Chauvin trial and was extremely disappointed with the closing argument of his attorney. It was stumbling, bumbling, misstatements, corrections, poorly organized, missed some of the most important points brought out in testimony, delivered by an attorney who sounded overly nervous, and in my opinion, was not worthy of a junior high school debate team. I believe it was largely responsible for Chauvin’s conviction and all the convictions and prosecutions that followed.
So, since being able to deliver a well organized and compelling speech is essential for a trial attorney, why do are so many terrible at it? Is this not adequately taught in law school?
Andrew,
It is always good to see that justice is done, delayed and extremely costly though it might be in this case. It looks to me as if the case should never have been brought in the first place. Oulson made a very credible threat to do great bodily harm to someone who took that threat seriously and defended himself against it. Oulson deserved what he got and Reeves was only protecting himself by shooting Oulson. That looked pretty clear at the outset and never changed over the eight years the case dragged on.
What seems apparent here is that anyone using deadly force in an altercation such as this IS GOING TO BE BROUGHT TO TRIAL NO MATTER HOW JUSTIFIED THEIR ACTION. It looks to me like the DAs of Florida have informally agreed that they cannot let someone defend their life with deadly force without putting that person through all the cost, trouble and mental torture of a criminal trial. As in so many things having to do with the relationship between the citizenry and law enforcement, the process is the punishment. Reeves doesn’t have to spend the rest of his life in a cage for defending his life against a violent assault and battery, but he’s considerably poorer for having had to purchase a good defense to keep him out of that cage.
Oulson is dead, but Reeves certainly did not come out of this unscathed. That is due to the caprice of the law, which seems biased against those who legally defend themselves with deadly force. In a just world, the DA would never have brought this case and, had said DA been foolish enough to bring it, when Reeves was found not guilty the State of Florida should have had to recompense Mr. Reeves for his legal fees and expenses. It seems to me that someone in Florida should be working very hard to get a law to this effect on the books. I expect it would have a very chilling effect on CYA prosecutions like that against Mr. Reeves, something which would greatly benefit the law-abiding citizens of Florida.
As long as prosecutors face no consequences for violating people’s constitutional rights, this will continue.
Be sure to watch the video “Lethal Movie Theater Popcorn? | Curtis Reeves Case Analysis” by inserting the following address into your Internet browser: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Li3j6UM_nNc.
In the video, Dr. Todd Grande, a mental health expert, concludes or speculates that Reeves was guilty of murder. His comments echo many of the thoughts that I published here on this series of blogs about the Reeves/Chad shooting.