So the three men have been found guilty of felony murder. For those unfamiliar, felony murder is when during the commission of some crime a person or persons are killed. Even if there was no intent to kill, the fact that you were committing some other crime, makes that homicide murder. This is significant because as I had been arguing, I did not see how they could be found guilty of murder because there would be the issue of intent. Since those guys claimed that they were trying to do a citizens arrest, it would be nigh impossible to prove criminal intent. So here I will explain why I both agree and disagree with the verdict.
Putting on my "if I'm the juror" hat (I've been there a few times), given what I know about the case, there were two major things that would support the jury's verdict. First is that evidence of Ahmaud using the "jogger" routine as cover for his known criminal behavior was NOT allowed in this trial. This is key. I have argued from the beginning that the "innocent jogger" claim was and is bogus. I stand by that. Why? Because I'm a runner. I know many runners and not a single one of them would EVER stop their run to trespass on someone's property (under construction or not) and look around. No not even, as some tried to claim, "to get water."
I also know that people who engage in criminal behavior like that ALWAYS have a "cover" act. They don't just go up to their victim or target all obvious about their intentions. So to me, the whole "jogger" thing smelled of cover and that evidence of prior behavior underscored that. However; the jury did not get that information and couldn't presume it. Hence they could only consider that Ahmaud was in fact "just a jogger".
The second thing was that, as I understand it, the testimony was that the defendants not only didn't see the burglary or tresspas themselves, but that they didn't even know about it. I've seen the diagram of the events as well as "non-sworn" testimony to the contrary and believed that even if they didn't actually see the alleged burglary or trespass but that they were told he was there or had just left. Which brings me to a common point I make here: People say things all the time but when they are under oath, the truth usually comes out. If the defendants did not see the events and had not been contacted about the events, then the jury could reasonably conclude that their going after and detaining Ahmaud was unlawful and the resulting death was a murder.
Those same set of circumstances eliminates the self-defense claim made by the defense because it would be Ahmaud that was defending himself, even though he clearly grabbed the gun.
So based strictly on the rules of the court and the instructions given to the jury I cannot disagree with their conclusion. I don't think appeals will go far because both the evidence of the "jogger cover" and the "we were told he had just..." evidence would have to be considered. That would require someone to recant testimony. I don't see that happening.