John Karol M Perez CN 19

9 BL Apollinaris of Posat

The Case of John McNeil: Was His Use of Self-Defense Justified?

John McNeil, a 56-year-old father of two sons, was charged for murder in 2006 and
sentenced for life in prison for shooting Brian Epp, a contractor, who was on his property and
threatened his son with a knife. McNeil's trial attorney did not request charges based on the
theories of defence of habitation and/or defence of property. In September 2012, a Georgia
Superior Court judge granted McNeil's petition for habeas corpus based on ineffective
counsel. However, Georgia Attorney General Sam Olens chose to appeal the ruling that
granted John McNeil’s habeas corpus petition. In this essay I will analyse whether John
McNeil's use of self-defence was justified or not.
On December 6, 2005, John McNeil and Brian Epp had a confrontation in McNeil's yard after
McNeil's son claimed Epp pulled a knife on him. Leading to McNeil shooting and killing Epp.
The police ruled the action as self-defense. However, nearly a year after the incident, McNeil
was charged with murder and sentenced to life in prison.
During the trial, the prosecutor argued that McNeil was not justified in using his firearm on
Epp because Epp was unarmed when he was shot. The prosecution also claimed that
McNeil had the opportunity to retreat, and that he did not have the right to use deadly force
to protect his property.
McNeil's defense attorney however retorted back that Epp had previously threatened
McNeil's life and had pulled a knife on his son. McNeil feared for his son's life and acted in
self-defense. McNeil's defense attorney also argued that he had the right to prtoect his
property.
The jury convicted McNeil of felony murder and aggravated assault but acquitted him on
charges of malice murder and manslaughter. The Georgia Supreme Court rejected McNeil's
direct appeal of his conviction in 2008.
In 2012, McNeil filed a petition for habeas corpus, challenging how the trial was conducted.
The Georgia Superior Court granted McNeil's request for a new trial based on ineffective
counsel. However, Attorney General Sam Olens filed an appeal to overturn the decision,
arguing that McNeil's use of deadly force was not justified.
The NAACP has been advocating for McNeil's release, arguing that he was a homeowner
who had the right to protect his home and his child. The NAACP also argues that laws of
justice are riddled with problems, especially when a black man is clearly defending himself
and his family from an attack on his property, and is convicted of homicide and sentenced to
prison for life.
In conclusion, based on the evidence and my personal research, I believe that John McNeil's
use of self-defence was justified. He was scared for his son's life and acted to protect his
family and his property. The jury's decision to convict him of felony murder and aggravated
assault but acquit him on charges of malice murder and manslaughter suggests that they
understand the circumstances on why he acted on this. The Court's decision to grant
McNeil's petition for habeas corpus based on ineffective counsel further justifies his action of
self defence.

Resources:
Afro News. (2020, October 28). NAACP National Board: John McNeil Case is a National
Issue. Afro News.
https://afro.com/naacp-national-board-john-mcneil-case-is-a-national-issue/
Rankin, B. (2013, January 22). Was self-defence murder? AJC.
https://www.ajc.com/news/local/was-self-defense-murder/Se5HXOYibSoLQBBZynZdVJ/