Attorney's

Please take the time to read in its entirety. John's Attorney.

First, my heart goes out to everyone affected by this tragic case. To the Peek family, I extend my deepest sympathies for your loss. While we a job to do, we are human above all else, and I recognize the profound pain that both sides are enduring. During the trial, I approached Dan Jr. to offer my sincere condolences for the loss of his father, hoping to express even a fraction of the compassion this situation deserves. I also acknowledge the heartbreak felt by John’s loved ones—this tragedy has left devastation on all sides. There are no winners here.

While emotions understandably run high, I want to share some key facts for those seeking a fuller understanding of this case. A two-hour docuseries cannot capture every detail, and it is important to consider the broader picture. My goal is not to argue or fuel division, but to encourage thoughtful, respectful discussions. Let’s honor those impacted by keeping this conversation grounded in facts, empathy, and kindness. Any comments rooted in hate or personal attacks will be removed. Thank you for your understanding.

Key Facts / Evidence:

· Dan had planned to take a shower but changed his mind when he realized John was on his way. Instead, he told Kaitlynn to gather her diaper bag, car seat, and overnight bag, and to walk to the corner with her young child in the summer heat. Mary did not stop this.

· John had previously picked Kaitlynn and his grandson up from that location numerous times without incident. He even picked them up after the “heated phone conversation,” without issues.

· Investigators did not perform extractions on the phones of Mary, Dan Sr., or Dan Jr. John was arrested after less than an hour of interviews, and additional photographs of his injuries were not taken as they developed while he was incarcerated.

· John had moved on from Mary and was in love with Megan. He had no motive related to his past relationship.

· Dan went outside onto the porch, pacing up and down the street with his pit bull, waiting for John’s arrival and making aggressive statements about wanting to fight John.

· When John arrived, he saw Dan acting in an agitated, aggressive, erratic manner—clenching his fists, puffing his chest—he was concerned his daughter and grandson were present around this activity, thus, he didn’t just reverse out of the driveway and leave. John even texted Kaitlynn that he would just pick her up at the house.

· John, who had significant health issues, lacked the stamina to engage in a physical fight. He arrived wearing flip-flops, carrying his phone, keys, and wallet in his shorts—suggesting he had no intention of a confrontation.

· When Dan approached John aggressively from the porch, he shouted physical threats to John, including threats of death. John exited his vehicle and initially fired a warning shot into the ground, attempting to assert himself due to his physical limitations. Dan did not run at this point. John had never unholstered his weapon before for any type of altercation.

· Dan invited John over to fight previously during their “heated phone conversation” and John did not accept that invitation.

· John legally carried a firearm due to a previous incident in which he had been mistakenly identified as someone else and targeted in a shooting where he was seated in the front seat of his vehicle. There was over 15 shell casings found directed at John’s vehicle.

· If John had intended to kill Dan, he could have done so before witnesses were present. He could have removed the memory card from the Dashcam and destroyed it by breaking, chewing, swallowing, hiding, and John could have evaded detection.

· The video footage, when slowed down, indicates John did not physically strike Dan with his gun. Rather, he let go of the weapon and tossed it – indicating intent to avoid a deadly encounter. The coroner’s report also found no evidence of injuries consistent with a pistol whip (lacerations, cuts, bruising).

· John, unable to fight back due to his severe heart condition, attempted to subdue Dan by jumping on his back and using his weight to hold him down. The situation quickly escalated when a third party (Dan Jr.) intervened, John found himself outnumbered and physically overwhelmed.

· John endured a severe beating, including punches, kicks, and choking, leaving him disoriented and fearing for his life. He was now facing two people beating him without knowing who the 2nd person was or his combat skills. John also had no idea if others would jump in. Additionally, there is now two sets of hands, feet and also eyes that can find John’s gun and use it against him. John is seeing stars, has lost all endurance, and cant defend himself at this point.

· John took a severe beating to the neck, head, face, and temple area including kicks, punches, choke and stomps. He was seeing stars, lost mental faculties, lost decision-making ability, was confused, panicked, disoriented and in fear for his life. If he lost consciousness he could have been stomped to death or severely maimed.

· In the struggle, Dan pulled John around by his shirt like a rag doll and delivered a final blow near John’s temple area before John landed near his firearm.

· Dan did inch closer to John, indicating further desire for altercation until he saw John’s hand touch the gun. Only then did he run. He did not run before, after the “warning shot.” Dan had done nothing at that point to warrant or justify John shooting or fearing for his life in self- defense.

· In less than a second, John, in a state of panic, fear, bewilderment, and not thinking or seeing clearly, fired a single shot while on his knees in an unstable position in grass and gravel, with only one hand. There were no additional shots fired. He fired to stop the beating.

· After the incident, John immediately called 911 himself. When instructed to disarm, he responded that he was afraid they might come back to harm him—indicating he was still in a state of fear and shock, unaware that Dan had been fatally wounded.

· John did not accept a plea deal because the prosecution was seeking 14 years—an effective life sentence given his health condition.

· Kaitlynn was not forthcoming with all details, and testimony suggested she feared losing her housing if she spoke openly.

· The jury found that John was the “initial aggressor,” stripping him of his self-defense claim. However, they did not fully grasp that he legally regained his right to self-defense once the fight escalated with a third-party intervention.

· We met with the jury right after the verdict (the Defense, Prosecution, and Bailiff). Several jurors expressed that they did not understand the self-defense jury instruction. When it was explained to them, several started crying upon realizing the implications of their misunderstanding.

· We collected notarized affidavits from multiple jurors that stated they would have voted “Not Guilty” had they understood the self-defense jury instructions properly.

· This would have resulted in a hung jury.

My Final Thoughts:

Regardless of where one stands on this case, it highlights a broader issue—jury instructions must be clear, precise, and easily understood by those responsible for determining a person’s life and fate. This is not just a concern for defense attorneys but for prosecutors, judges, jurors, and all citizens who depend on a fair and just legal system. Ensuring that legal instructions are accessible and easily understood rather than confusing and archaic is a necessary step toward justice for all.