James Greenwood sat quietly between his two attorneys Tuesday morning in Courtroom 407, dressed in a black suit and with trimmed facial hair, as lawyers on both sides started arguments in the murder case against him.

The trial for the 37-year-old man, who fatally shot his estranged stepfather in November 2014, finally began Tuesday after four years of hearings, motions and attempts to have the case dismissed under Florida's "stand your ground" law.

Now, a jury of four men and 10 women will decide if Greenwood acted in self-defense when he shot Al Jones, or if, like the state says, he planned the attack and should be found guilty of first-degree premeditated murder.

What the law says: New Florida law shifts burden of proof in 'stand your ground' cases

In opening statements, both sides agreed to a basic set of facts: On Nov. 21, 2014, Jones, who was married to Greenwood's mother and whose name was on the deed to their house, as well as another man who was acquainted with Jones, entered the house on Mobile Highway through the laundry room door. Greenwood, who had been hiding in another room of the house, then shot Jones several times with a 12-gauge shotgun, and Jones was found dead of gunshot wounds next to a set of trash cans beside the house.

But the defense and prosecution have vastly different interpretations of the events of Nov. 21, as well as several events that led up to the fatal shooting, and whether or not they justified Greenwood's actions that day.

Jurors first heard from the state's prosecutor, Alvin Myers, who played a video for them that is undoubtedly going to be central to both sides' cases. The video was from a camera that Greenwood set up in a corner of the laundry room entrance to his mother's home on the day Jones was shot.

The video shows Greenwood locking the laundry room door, then heading out of the camera's view. Jones then breaks open the door and walks inside, with another man following behind him. That's when gunshots ring out, and Greenwood can be seen walking into the laundry room, wearing a bulletproof vest and carrying the shotgun, shooting in the direction of Jones, who had run outside.

Myers also showed the jury photos of Jones' dead body as he laid beside a set of trash cans, showing that he had a gun in his hand.

"Ultimately, what you'll find is that Al Jones was shot multiple times, and James Greenwood was not hurt in the incident," Myers told the jurors. "Folks, you're going to see in this case that there's going to be a lot of evidence, a lot of audio visual, photographs, and well over 150 exhibits and it'll take some time to get to them all . ... We're confident at the close of the case, you'll agree that James Greenwood is guilty of first-degree premeditated murder."

More on the case:

• Jury picked in James Greenwood 'stand your ground' case, trial expected to begin Tuesday

• Three high-profile Pensacola murder cases heading to trial next week

• 'Stand your ground' case will go to trial after judge refuses to dismiss charges

But Greenwood's lead defense attorney, Chris Klotz, painted a much different picture of the shooting. He argued that Greenwood and his mother had been in fear for their lives for some time before the shooting, and that Jones had moved out of the house two months before the shooting took place as he and his wife began the process of divorcing.

Klotz said witnesses would testify that Jones was a "violent, scary, angry, rage-filled man who could turn on you in a second," and that Greenwood believed Jones was coming into the home to hurt him or his mother on the day he shot him.

"When Al would get upset with somebody, his rage was explosive," Klotz told the jurors.

Klotz said Jones carried a pistol with him 24/7, even putting it in his pajamas when he slept, and used it to threaten people on a regular basis. He said Jones had threatened Greenwood a few months before the shooting by pointing a gun at his head, and had bragged before about killing two people.

He also argued that Greenwood's mother was a battered woman who was in fear for her life, and was on her way home from filing for a restraining order against Jones when the shooting occurred.

An issue the jurors will have to parse out is whether or not Greenwood was standing his ground, since Jones was on the deed to the home and Greenwood had been told by sheriff's deputies that he couldn't keep Jones from entering the home he legally owned.

They'll also see evidence that Greenwood's mother purchased the shotgun used to kill Jones the day before the shooting took place.

Due to the extensive amount of evidence in the case, the trial could last until Friday or even go into next week.

Looks like that was a Kel-Tec KSG used?

Send the man home and let him get on with his life. Don't want to get shot? Then don't break into homes. Fuck the dead guy.

quote:

Jones, who was married to Greenwood's mother and whose name was on the deed to their house

If correct, Greenwood may be the trespasser (did he have permission from his mother to be there) and Jones didn’t break into anything, other than his own personal property. I am curious if the restraining order was filed and what impact that may have on the case. Based on the police feedback about not being able to prevent Jones from entering, it seems the solution would be to have the mother reside elsewhere until the divorce & property settlement are finalized - even if that takes a while.

Regardless of who was legally entitled to be there and who was not, I suspect that 'stand your ground' evaporates when the shootee (Jones in this case) turns and runs away. If he was in fact the asshole the defense portrays, then I agree he needed to be shot. But, my guess is that between Jones' running and the obvious preparation that Greenwood had done, he'll be convicted.

If Greenwoods mother gave him permission to be on property then he's not tresspassing, pretty sure that is going to be a given his mom is going to say she wanted him there as she was scared of Jones.

quote:

Originally posted by Dakor:

quote:

Jones, who was married to Greenwood's mother and whose name was on the deed to their house

If correct, Greenwood may be the trespasser (did he have permission from his mother to be there) and Jones didn’t break into anything, other than his own personal property.

"Jones didn’t break into anything" That my problem with this. I would think that would be a big problem for the defense.

quote:

I suspect that 'stand your ground' evaporates when the shootee (Jones in this case) turns and runs away.

Turns, runs away, and begins shooting. If he was simply running away I would agree with you, but he continued to be a threat by shooting.

My opinion is that it doesn't matter whether the dead man was allowed to be there or not, or whether he owned the house or not. You can own a home, be entitled to be there, and still engage in behavior that entitles others in the home to defend themselves.

Bullets can go through walls. If the guy is outside, shooting ino the home, he's still a threat.

Plenty of stupid to sort through for the jury in this one.
The now dead homeowner breaking in with the gun in his hand, should have called the cops if he knew he was going to face an armed person.

The defendant in the house would have looked better if he hadn't followed outside and continued to shoot. I'm not saying he may not have been justified if the deceased was still shooting back into the building but jurors may see that as something less than self defense.

Some unanswered questions;
Did the mother or defendant notify the police earlier that the guy might show up armed and violent? They seemed to know it was coming.
The mother buying the weapon the day before and the defendant being armed and in some body armor with camera running shows they both knew this was likely. Not saying the police could have or would have been able to stop it but his self defense case would have been easier for his lawyer.

I suspect the world is a better place now that the dead guy is room temperature. We'll have to hear more about the other one.

quote:

Originally posted by Jelly:

quote:

Originally posted by Dakor:

quote:

Jones, who was married to Greenwood's mother and whose name was on the deed to their house

If correct, Greenwood may be the trespasser (did he have permission from his mother to be there) and Jones didn’t break into anything, other than his own personal property.

"Jones didn’t break into anything" That my problem with this. I would think that would be a big problem for the defense.

True, but it seems maybe there was a specific reason for the shooter to believe he and/or his mother was in serious danger, both prior to the event, and at the time of the event. I'm no legal expert, but it seems if someone enters a place where they expect you to be with the intent of beating or killing you, the fact that they may have a right to be there doesn't override your right to self defense.

Shooter may be found innocent, but his actions are causing him a lot of trouble.

The Florida "Stand Your Ground" law was revised after this shooting occurred and before this trial. The law in force when the shooting occurred put the burden of feeling threatened on the one claiming self defense. That should be easy in this case. The new law puts that burden on the prosecutor who has to prove you acted with a criminal intent. The revised law also expands the SYG defense to anywhere you are allowed to be.

Greenwood fired and can be heard yelling at the deceased to get out. I’m not sure that under the circumstances I wouldn’t want eyes on someone that posed a danger to me. He didn’t appear to be ready to pull the trigger as he looked out. When he peeks out, you can hear the dead guy clearly shooting at him, prompting more firing from Greenwood. It will be up to the jury to decide the particulars. I hope the stories of abuse and threatening to kill can be corroborated; it would go miles to which way the jury leans.

If the dead guy's name is on the deed and there is no TRO/Permanent RO, defense has got some problems here.

Add to that the ballistic vest, another layer of "premeditation"/ambush.

What we dont know, did the defense file a Stand Your Ground motion? (and lose?) Or are they skipping that and just arguing self defense. The SYG is a pre-trial motion, not something, typically, argued at trial. I dont believe it is even something that would be decided by a jury, it is judge only.

There is not enough info to this story.

It appears the guy used a key to a house he owned. He finds the chain is locks and forces the door. The stepson is waiting with a camera, body armor and slung shotgun. Step daddy has no weapon in his hand when stepson fires the first round. They make the claims about all of step dads prior violent behavior but makes no mention if it was ever reported to the police.


I dont think this looks good for the stepson.

This will be a good case to follow.

The last two shots seem problematic. No more shots coming from the deceased and step son goes out for kill shot. I think until he chases him out for the kill he was fine.

I'd also like to know if restraining order was granted or not. I'd think that would change things somewhat.

quote:

Originally posted by Skins2881:... No more shots coming from the deceased and step son goes out for kill shot. ...

That statement is not a good argument.

We know the dead-guy was shooting, the shotgun-guy steps out of the video view and all we have is audio. We cannot see or know from this audio if the dead guy was already a non-threat, or if he was able and possibly pointing his handgun at the shotgun-guy. (found being the dead-guy with his handgun still in his grasp)

And, "kill shot"?
c'mon, don't make a left turn on a red herring, you might run-over a straw-man chasing a chicken.

quote:

Originally posted by sigmonkey:

quote:

Originally posted by Skins2881:... No more shots coming from the deceased and step son goes out for kill shot. ...

That statement is not a good argument.

We know the dead-guy was shooting, the shotgun-guy steps out of the video view and all we have is audio. We cannot see or know from this audio if the dead guy was already a non-threat, or if he was able and possibly pointing his handgun at the shotgun-guy. (found being the dead-guy with his handgun still in his grasp)

And, "kill shot"?
c'mon, don't make a left turn on a red herring, you might run-over a straw-man chasing a chicken.

Well that's exactly how it will be framed in fornt of the jury regardless of the actual situation.

I said problematic, not that I had a problem with it. I don't have enough info to know what was going on.

quote:

Originally posted by Southflorida-law:
If the dead guy's name is on the deed and there is no TRO/Permanent RO, defense has got some problems here.

Add to that the ballistic vest, another layer of "premeditation"/ambush.

What we dont know, did the defense file a Stand Your Ground motion? (and lose?) Or are they skipping that and just arguing self defense. The SYG is a pre-trial motion, not something, typically, argued at trial. I dont believe it is even something that would be decided by a jury, it is judge only.

Yep, judge disallowed the preemptive SYG dismissal so the DA could charge him with murder. Now, is he tried under the rules of the old SYG law or the new one? I don't know.

Latest trial news here.