- May 4, 2024
-
-
Loading
Loading
UPDATED at 1:24 p.m.
After deliberating for about 1.5 hours Friday, the jury found Paul Miller guilty as charged with second-degree murder.
Miller, 66, faces a minimum sentence of 25 years in prison. He could be sentenced to life.
He will be sentenced at a hearing 1:30 p.m. June 18.
ORIGINAL STORY
Arguments in the Paul Miller case have concluded. Now, Miller, his attorneys and prosecutors have nothing to do but await a verdict from jurors, who are currently in deliberations.
Both the prosecution and the defense told jurors that the crux of the case lies in one question: Did Miller shoot his neighbor, Dana Mulhall, in self-defense or out of spite?
Prosecutor Jacquelyn Roys began her closing remarks Friday morning by holding a large photo as she addressed the jury, arguing that the shooting did not arise when Mulhall returned home on March 14, 2012, but rather months previously, when the two men, along with Miller’s wife, had first argued about Miller’s barking dogs.
“Paul Miller is a proud man,” Roys said. “You heard him on the stand: ‘He said that in front of my wife.’ And that’s where it started. … Dana Mulhall had no idea the hatred that filled his neighbor for him.”
Mulhall came home from a nearby bar around 6 p.m. the night he died. Miller’s two dogs were outside and barking. Mulhall approached the short fence that separated his Flagler Beach house from Miller’s.
He began yelling and cursing at the dogs, according to the testimony of children who were passing by at the time of the incident.
Miller heard the yelling from inside his home, so he went outside and onto his front porch. At that time, he heard Mulhall’s front door slam. During testimony, Miller said he was worried that Mulhall was going to get a gun. He had threatened to kill him, his wife and his dogs before, Miller said.
Miller in turn retrieved a loaded pistol from his house. The two men met at the fence. They argued. Miller shot Mulhall five times, two of them from the back. Those were the facts in the case, but the prosecution and the defense presented alternate interpretations of the rest of the story.
Roys said spite was building inside of Miller ever since his first argument with Mulhall. A reasonable person argues and moves on, she said, but not Miller. She said if Miller had actually been afraid, he would have retrieved his phone, not a gun, from his house, so he could call 911.
Roys then shifted her attention to Florida statutes, which justify the use of deadly force “if a person believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm from himself or another.”
However, the statute says that such force is not allowed when a person provokes danger in another.
Roys said there was no evidence that Miller was afraid. A truly frightened man, she said, would not leave his house to confront the man he feared.
“(Miller) provoked the situation,” Roys said. “Simply put, he walked out, he confronted Mr. Mulhall, he barked orders at him, and that’s what started it.”
Statutes also say that people have no duty to retreat if they are confronted with force in a place where they have a right to be. In that case, they are allowed to “stand their ground and meet force with force.”
The fence at which the men argued was on Miller’s property. Miller testified that Mulhall stood with his hands on the fence, shaking it, as he yelled and made threats.
Roys said Mulhall did not exhibit force; and therefore, that Miller was only entitled to yell and curse at Mulhall, as Mulhall was doing to him.
Defense attorney Carine Jarosz, by contrast, said Miller did have cause to be afraid. Mulhall was on Miller’s property, threatening and drunk (his blood alcohol content at the time of his death was 0.188).
“Mr. Miller had no duty to retreat,” Jarosz said. “If anything, Mr. Mulhall had no business being on Mr. Miller’s fence, rattling it and not stopping after Mr. Miller asked him to remove his hands.”
Jarosz also contested Roys’ statement that Miller had concealed his gun. By walking with his hand behind his back, Miller was exhibiting the universal gesture that he was armed, Jarosz said. In response, Mulhall said he had a gun, too, because Mulhall reached behind his back. Miller’s response: Shoot, or be shot.
Critical to this point, Jarosz said, is that Miller shot only until he saw Mulhall fall to the ground. During his testimony, Miller said he kept shooting because he thought he missed. A final, unfired round was found in Miller’s gun. If Miller had been acting out of spite, he would have shot until he was out of bullets, Jarosz said.
“Ask yourselves: After the shooting, did he act like a murderer?” Jarosz said. “Did he run and hide? No. Did he ditch the gun? No. Did he call the police? Yes.”
Jarosz blamed Mulhall for the incident, saying Miller thought he had no other choice but to shoot to protect himself.
The jury entered deliberations at approximately 11:30 a.m. Check for updates about the verdict.
