I’ve started posting at medium.com/@johndorschner commentaries on what’s been happening in recent days and comparing these events to the 1980 McDuffie case.

My latest is almost a rant. The first three paragraphs:

“Forty years after a similar police brutality case exploded Miami, we are seeing a highly charged prosecution rushing ahead in Minnesota.

“There are some disturbing similarities – the intense political pressure on prosecutors, the rush to indict, the upping charges to second degree murder.

And we’re also seeing some differences – some good, some not-so-good. To name just one: Back in May 1980, it wouldn’t have occurred to President Jimmy Carter to turn the Miami riot into a weaponized campaign theme, whereas our current Very Stable Genius has ratcheted up the conversation to such a level that even right-wing military leaders are complaining that the Narcissist-in-Chief is dividing the country.”

https://tinyurl.com/ycwfurue

Just in time for the 40th anniversary of the notorious 1980 McDuffie riots comes a new book to explain what happened – “Verdict on Trial: The Inside Story of the Cops Trial that Ignited Miami’s deadliest riot.”

Written by veteran Miami journalist John Dorschner, the book takes a new, hard look at what went wrong in one of America’s most devastating trials, revealing for the first time many details about problems in a case that the public assumed was certain to lead to convictions.

The book is available in a trade paperback and in an electronic Kindle edition at https://www.amazon.com/dp/B087SG6ZSC

The “McDuffie cops case,” as it was often called, involved five white Miami police officers accused of killing black motorcyclist Arthur McDuffie or attempting to cover up the way he died. On May 17, 1980, the cops were acquitted of all charges. Black neighborhoods erupted. Eighteen were killed. Property damage was $100 million.

What happened in that courtroom? This book offers not only new revelations about one of the most important trials in 20th Century America – but also a fresh perspective on the complexities of high-publicity, high-pressure cases down to the present day, especially those involving police officers charged with killing unarmed civilians.

In many of these high-profile cases, the media – and the public — often focuses on the accusations without fully comprehending the maneuvering that defense attorneys do in the courtroom to sway jurors.

“IMPOSSIBLE TO COMPREHEND”

So it was in the McDuffie case. The verdicts astonished almost everyone in Miami: “Simply numbing, impossible to comprehend,” moaned one editorial writer.

In fact, for those lawyers in the courtroom – prosecutors and defense – the verdicts were easy to comprehend. The state’s case was a mess.

WHY THE STATE’S CASE WAS A MESS

That’s the underlying theme of this book – released on the 40th anniversary of the verdicts and riots. Truth is, the state’s first four witnesses contradicted each other in profound ways. All of them were cops, testifying against other cops. The prosecutor admitted long after the trial was over: “Boy, they were terrible witnesses.”

THE LEAD DETECTIVE HAD DOUBTS

Even the lead homicide detective in the case confessed years later he wasn’t surprised at the verdicts: “Had I been on that jury, I might have had those same doubts.”

These opinions don’t diminish the underlying evidence that showed clearly that Arthur McDuffie was murdered. The autopsy concluded that the blows on his skull by a nightstick or heavy police flashlight must have been administered when he was lying on the ground or propped against a wall. His hands showed no defensive wounds: He wasn’t resisting. “Murder,” said the coroner. Still, as one defense attorney put it, “the question is who did what?”

PICKING THE WRONG JURORS

In the 40 years since, the acquittals have often been blamed on “an all-white jury,” as if that were sufficient explanation. Of course, there are many different kinds of whites, and this book will describe how one of the prosecution’s mistakes was selecting “law-and-order” men who tended naturally to sympathize with the cops on trial.

Throughout the book is a running commentary on the day-by-day court proceedings by James B. Lees, a nationally renowned trial attorney. He’s an ex-cop, ex-prosecutor who has tried over 400 cases. After the profound contradictions of just the first two state witnesses, he remarked: “At that point who — white, black, or green — would give any credence to this type of testimony and evidence?”

John Dorschner can be contacted at VerdictOnTrial@gmail.com.

While boats were racing from Key West to Mariel harbor to pick up Cubans who wanted to leave the island, a former county police officer, Mark Meier, took the witness stand in Tampa to say that motorcyclist Arthur McDuffie yelled, “I give up!” before a bunch of cops started pummeling him with nightsticks and Kel-Lites. Just judging from the headline, Miamians thought they had a clear idea of what had happened. They didn’t.

This photo appeared in the July-August 1980 issue of BOLO, the magazine of the Dade County Police Benevolent Association.  No photo credit given, but apparently taken by a fellow police officer in a devastated section of Liberty City.

  ​     My Miami 1980 research has led to a Miami Herald story:
“The tumultuous Mariel refugee influx of 1980 is back in the news — this time at the core of a roiling debate about whether immigrants hurt less-educated native-born workers. The heated arguments focus on the new work of a Cuban-born Harvard professor, George Borjas, who concludes that Mariel caused a drastic drop in pay among native-born Miami high school dropouts — the majority of whom were black.” That story is available HERE.
A companion Herald story discusses the discusses the politics of immigration, including Borjas’ idea of taxing employers who benefit from cheap immigrant labor and how some progressives cite Borjas in rethinking their stance on immigration. That story can be found HERE. Published July 21, 2017.