His lawyers insisted he’s not the perp, and innocent people do get convicted, but a Florida jury decided he sought revenge against the wrong people after he was robbed and shot on his ice cream truck route.
Prosecutors told jurors Michael Keetley (photo, left) was “frustrated with law enforcement’s investigation” of the crime against him, “began his own investigation,” and decided a man nicknamed “Creeper” had done it to him. Police say “Creeper” didn’t.
A survivor testified that “an armed white man wearing a T-shirt with the word ‘sheriff’ on it” showed up at neighbors of “Creeper,” demanded to know where he was, then shot 6 people, killing 2 (more details of the crime here).
Keetley’s lawyers argued the witnesses “identified the wrong man” and police conducted a sloppy investigation. They said his injuries from the robbery left him physically incapable of doing what he was accused of.
It was a tough case for prosecutors, and agonizing for the family and survivors. It took 10 years to bring it to trial, only to end in mistrial (with 10 of 12 jurors voting for acquittal), and then after another two-years, a second jury deliberated for three days before reaching a verdict. Keetley, they decided, did it.
I can see where there might be room for doubt. Suppose, for example, “Creeper” (whoever he is) was involved with drugs and this had nothing to do with Keetley’s robbery. The shooter may have thought one of the victims was “Creeper,” and shot the rest to eliminate witnesses. But that’s not where the trial evidence led.
What if the jury is right, and Keetley was the shooter? Then this a case of a vigilante taking the law into his own hands, which would make him a murderer even if he shot the person who robbed him. But what if the vigilante is wrong and exacts revenge against innocents? That makes it all the more monstrous.
The jury having found him guilty, Keetley faces life without parole (see story here). Prosecutors originally sought the death penalty, which is one of the reasons why the case strung out so long. Dropping it probably was the right thing to do. I’m not against the death penalty in all cases, but I think guilt should be beyond any doubt. You can’t reverse an execution, and numerous exonerations of death row inmates renders the administration of the death penalty very problematic.
As it is, Keetley will have a chance to appeal his conviction, and undoubtedly will. But he now faces an even more uphill battle. Courts don’t second-guess juries, and to get a new trial he’ll have to show this one was legally flawed in a material way. That’s hard to do.