Gordon v. State
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed Michael Gordon's convictions and death sentences for two murders committed during a crime spree that began with a pawnshop robbery and ended in a high-speed chase and standoff. The Court held that Gordon failed to preserve his Batson/Melbourne challenge to the State's peremptory strike of a Black juror because his trial objection that the State's reasons were 'insufficiently race-neutral' did not put the trial court on notice of a pretext argument, and he never raised a comparative-juror analysis below. The Court also held sufficient evidence supported Gordon's attempted first-degree murder convictions based on a vehicle, finding the jury could infer premeditation from the chaotic circumstances of his flight.
Key facts
- Michael Gordon was convicted of two murders and sentenced to death following a crime spree that included a pawnshop robbery, high-speed chase, and standoff.
- Gordon objected at trial to the State's peremptory strike of a Black juror, arguing the State's reasons were 'insufficiently race-neutral,' but did not specifically argue pretext or raise a comparative analysis of other jurors' responses.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
This opinion reinforces and applies the preservation rule from State v. Johnson requiring defense counsel to specifically articulate why a proponent's race-neutral reason for a peremptory strike is pretextual, rather… — full analysis with a trial
🔒 Read the full opinion, holding & search the library
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision are available to members. Start a free 30-day trial — no credit card.
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.