Michael Keetley is facing a retrial for double murder charges after authorities say the ice cream man gunned down two people on Thanksgiving Day 2010.
A defense attorney in the second murder trial of an ex-ice cream man accused of a deliberate revenge slaughter got off to an animated start in Florida on Monday morning as he made the case that his client did not commit, and could not have committed, the crimes in question.
Michael Keetley, 53, stands accused of two counts of murder and four counts of attempted murder for allegedly donning the garb of law enforcement and forcing a group of men to the ground at a house on Ocean Mist Court in Ruskin — before taking his long gun and shooting a flurry of bullets, racking, and firing again on Thanksgiving morning.
As a result of that alleged rampage by the black-clad man with a “sheriff” or “police” shirt on, brothers Juan Guitron, 28, and Sergio Guitron, 22, who were known as “Magic” and “Spider,” were killed.
Four others were wounded.
“They have picked up the heavy hand of blame and pointed it at Michael Keetley, folks, that is where our agreement ends,” defense attorney John Grant said after agreeing with the state that the shooting was horrible and that it left two people dead. “Michael Keetley is not guilty because he did not do it.”
The defendant spent 10 years in the Falkenburg Road County Jail before being brought to trial. His first trial, in 2020, ended with a hung jury; two jurors were resolute in their desire to convict him.
“We don’t want to presume guilt in any situation,” Grant said. He then motioned at the prosecutors with his hands and continued: “It’s not fair to start here at this table.” That line prompted a quick objection from the state’s attorney, who said Grant was arguing the case.
Judge Christopher C. Sabella cautioned the defense attorney to stick to the facts of the case. The defense attorney finished his thought.
“As you hear the evidence, you don’t stand in the middle,” Grant told the jury. “As you hear the evidence, you are to presume that he is innocent. Michael Keetley is here today to let each and every one of you know that he is not guilty of what these prosecutors say he is.”
The state alleges that Keetley, a victim of an armed robbery in January 2010, who was left permanently disabled after he was taken for $12 and left for dead outside his purple ice cream truck with four gunshot wounds, became intent on exacting vengeance against the people who injured him for life — and that he sought it 10 months later.
“Obsessed with revenge,” prosecutor Jennifer Johnson told jurors in Hillsborough County on Monday. “That’s what this case is about.”
The state argues that a number of internet searches support their theory — that Keetley researched information about Glock handguns, nicknames of the victims, uniforms, enforcement, and silencers, as well as the street name where the shooting occurred.
Porch where the shooting occurred in the #MichaelKeetley trial. When officers involved they found four people shot on this porch. One inside the house and one down the street. Six people were shot, two died. #IceCreamManMurder pic.twitter.com/bu9ZRCSFqm
— Cathy Russon (@cathyrusson) March 6, 2023
The defense, in the earlier mistrial, highlighted inconsistent ballistics and the fact that the murder weapon is still unknown — state witnesses described various firearms used. Keetley owned multiple guns but even the state’s own crime scene investigator conceded that none of those firearms likely killed the two brothers.
“You can and you should consider what’s missing, what conflicts, and what you hear.” the defense attorney went on. “And as you do, the courtroom will fill with reasonable doubt – even though it only takes one doubt that is reasonable.”
Grant continued on like this for a while longer, detailing the state’s factual burden, noting that the defendant doesn’t have to prove a thing but adding that he does have “stuff to say” about the charges brought against him. Eventually, the prosecutor objected again, complaining that the defense was, again, legally arguing.
The judge sustained the objection, telling Grant to get into the defense’s thoughts about “what the evidence will show.”
“Sure,” the defense attorney said. “Sorry, judge. The evidence will show that they have to prove every element of the case and they have to do it beyond a reasonable doubt. So, before we get to Thanksgiving morning of 2010, we have to go back in time.”
“We need to tell you about January 23rd of 2010,” Grant continued. “For while they said it is evidence of his motivation to commit a terrible crime, in reality, the evidence will show, irrefutably, that he could not do what they’ve accused.”
The defense’s overarching claim is that the four gunshot wounds Keetley sustained in the robbery left the ice cream man unable to have fired such an intense barrage of shots later that same year.
During his previous trial, the surgeon who operated on Keetley said it was “extremely unlikely” that he would have been able to lift, hold, or fire a gun with his right hand on the day of the shooting. The defendant had intensive surgery on his right arm and at least three surgeries on his left hand in the months after he was attacked.
“What am I going to do?” Keetley asked investigators during his police interview. “Hobble over there and shoot them left-handed?”
Have a tip we should know? [email protected]
