Evidence | Justice for Steven Paul Colon

Evidence Overview

The evidence in Steven Paul Colon's case points to significant issues with the initial investigation and determination that this was a "justifiable homicide" under Florida's Stand Your Ground law. This page presents a detailed analysis of the key evidence points and investigation failures that demand a reconsideration of this case.

The evidence overwhelmingly indicates that this case warrants reopening, criminal charges against David Gregory, and a thorough reexamination of the investigative failures that led to this miscarriage of justice. - Legal Memorandum

Key Evidence Points

1. Gregory's Aggressor Status

Both David and Amy Gregory admitted in testimony that David crossed over to Steven's side of the road. Amy Gregory explicitly confirmed this critical fact. This admission establishes David Gregory as the aggressor, as he encroached into Steven's personal space.

Under Florida law, the initial aggressor in a confrontation cannot claim Stand Your Ground immunity. This fact alone fundamentally disqualifies any self-defense claim under Florida's Stand Your Ground doctrine.

2. Illegal Concealed Carry

David Gregory did not have a valid concealed carry permit at the time of the shooting. This constituted a felony under Florida law (2022). Florida Statute §776.012(1) explicitly disqualifies individuals engaged in unlawful activity from Stand Your Ground protection.

This single fact alone should have precluded any Stand Your Ground consideration. The failure to acknowledge this critical legal disqualifier represents a significant oversight in the investigation.

3. 911 Call Inconsistencies

Amy claimed in her interview that she witnessed the "altercation." However, when asked by the dispatcher if David was hit or injured, Amy had to ask David, "Were you hit?" before responding.

This suggests she did not actually witness the incident as claimed. The 911 call reveals significant inconsistencies in the Gregory's account, raising questions about the credibility of their testimony.

4. Forensic Evidence Contradictions

The forensic evidence directly contradicts Gregory's account of a close-range struggle. Multiple witnesses heard two gunshots, not one, suggesting excessive force was used.

This discrepancy between the physical evidence and Gregory's testimony raises serious questions about the accuracy of his account of the events leading to Steven's death.

5. Prior Threats and Premeditation

There is substantial evidence of premeditation. Multiple witnesses confirmed prior threats by David Gregory against Steven. These threats demonstrate a pattern of hostility that preceded the fatal encounter.

The existence of these prior threats suggests that the shooting may not have been a spontaneous act of self-defense but rather the culmination of ongoing hostility.

Investigation Failures

1. Procedural Flaws

The investigation was procedurally flawed and biased. Critical evidence was not collected or preserved, and the investigation was concluded prematurely before all facts were established.

A thorough investigation would have included a more comprehensive collection of evidence, interviews with all potential witnesses, and a careful analysis of the physical evidence in relation to the testimonies provided.

2. Detective Nathan King's Qualifications

Detective King's determination that this case qualified as "justifiable homicide" has been directly contradicted by the State Attorney's Office. Questions have been raised about Detective King's qualifications and training in making Stand Your Ground determinations.

Stand Your Ground determinations require sophisticated legal analysis that may exceed standard law enforcement training. The premature nature of Detective King's determination, made before completing basic investigative steps, and his apparent failure to recognize clear legal disqualifiers for Stand Your Ground protection, necessitate a thorough review of his qualifications.

3. Cycle of Inaction

The State Attorney's Office has acknowledged that "there has been a miscarriage of justice." Yet procedurally, they require the SCSO to reopen the case before charges can be filed.

This has created a cycle of inaction where neither agency takes responsibility for moving the case forward. This procedural deadlock has prevented justice from being served in Steven's case and must be addressed.

Legal Assessment

The Sarasota County Sheriff's Office's conclusion that this was a "justifiable homicide" represents a profound misapplication of Florida law and a failure of the justice system to protect the rights of Steven Paul Colon and his family. - Legal Memorandum

Based on witness testimony, forensic evidence, and applicable Florida law, legal experts have concluded that:

David Gregory was the initial aggressor, crossing to Steven's side of the road by his own admission and his wife's confirmation
David Gregory was engaged in unlawful activity by carrying a concealed weapon without a valid permit
The forensic evidence directly contradicts Gregory's account of a close-range struggle
Multiple witnesses heard two gunshots, not one, suggesting excessive force
The investigation was procedurally flawed, biased, and failed to collect or preserve critical evidence
There is substantial evidence of premeditation, with multiple witnesses confirming prior threats by David Gregory

These findings strongly suggest that this case does not qualify for Stand Your Ground immunity and warrants criminal charges against David Ross Gregory.

Read Full Legal Analysis

Evidence Analysis