Zimmerman Seeks “Stand Your Ground” Hearing
The L.A. Times article makes it seem like this is an extraordinary and crazy hearing under a wild and crazy statute:
Lawyers for George Zimmerman will seek a hearing under Florida’s “stand your ground” self-defense law, which could result in the dismissal of all criminal charges against the man accused of killing Trayvon Martin.
Zimmerman’s defense team will use the controversial state law — which allows the use of deadly force when someone fears severe injury or death — because there is “clear support for a strong claim of self-defense,” lawyer Mark O’Mara wrote on the defense’s website.
How is that controversial? The L.A. Times seems to be unaware that in California, there is no duty to retreat when one is threatened. And it is fairly universal to be able to use deadly force if someone reasonably fears severe injury or death. (And, although the L.A. Times suggests otherwise, the Florida statute requires reasonable fear.)
The way the procedure is described also tries to make news out of nothing:
But traditional trial structure is flipped on its head in a “stand your ground” hearing. A judge, not a jury, decides the outcome. The burden of proof lies with the defense, not the prosecution. And the threshold of what needs to be proved is much lower.
In a criminal trial, prosecutors must prove the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. In a “stand your ground” hearing, defense lawyers show “a preponderance of the evidence” — that is, show with at least 50.1% certainty that Zimmerman “reasonably believed” he would be killed or would suffer serious injury.
A “stand your ground” hearing is essentially “a second bite at the apple,” said Eric Schwartzreich, a Fort Lauderdale lawyer, in an interview with the Los Angeles Times. If the judge rules against the defendant, the case will still go to trial. If the charges are dismissed, Zimmerman will receive immunity from future prosecution in Martin’s death.
“If you win the hearing, it’s game over,” said Schwartzreich, who’s represented multiple “stand your ground” defendants since the law passed in 2005. “If you lose, then you make the same argument to the jury.”
Um, a judge determining whether there is enough evidence to go to trial is nothing startling. It happens every day all across the country in preliminary hearings. How is that a “second bite at the apple”?
This hearing, of course, is not a traditional preliminary hearing, and will focus entirely on the self-defense issue. But so would any pretrial evidentiary hearing where self defense is the exclusive defense.
What’s more, in California, the burden of proof always lies with the prosecutor to show that a killing was not done in self-defense.
I’m glad Zimmerman is getting the opportunity for such a hearing. But at the same time, I just don’t see why so much ink is spilled over this law. It’s self-defense, people. It’s available everywhere.
P.S. Zimmerman prosecutors accidentally release photos of Trayvon Martin’s body. Whoops!
The LA Times – still leading in misinforming the public. Remember Mark Twain’s quote about newspapers? “If you don’t read the papers, you will be uninformed. If you do read the papers, you wil be misinformed.” Twain, hinself a newspaperman, knew his profession.
Michael M. Keohane (4fb662) — 8/10/2012 @ 7:20 amDo you want to trade;
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/08/09/2943103/records-show-zimmerman-got-ds.html
narciso (ee31f1) — 8/10/2012 @ 7:26 amThe pearl-clutching idiocy of the LAT continues. And Angela Corey’s office presents the dilemma of whether to classify their conduct as corrupt or incompetent. Of course, “both” is an option.
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/10/2012 @ 7:31 amNarciso, Just what his grades have to do with the incident? He’s not a Republican running for President being attacked by the Democrat Smear Machine.
This pictures shown in the Daily Mail article confirm for me that Zimmerman is only guilty of Self-Defense. Unfortunately, Liberals always side with violent criminals and blame their actions upon the Liberal Enemy-du-Jour.
PCD (1d8b6d) — 8/10/2012 @ 7:31 amSPQR, Corey’s office’s conduct is called Nifong-ing.
PCD (1d8b6d) — 8/10/2012 @ 7:32 amSPQR, in Illinois prosecutors would be disciplined for the “disclosures” about Zimmerman Ms. Corey has made, and the standard is strict liability.
nk (875f57) — 8/10/2012 @ 7:37 amI am curious about the decision to go for a hearing on the self-defense claim. I wondered how much sense it made to give the clearly incompetent prosecution too many opportunities to practice, but it may be that the defense is pretty confident of the state of the evidence.
My only doubt is whether or not the judge is as favorably inclined toward Zimmerman as they would want for this approach.
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/10/2012 @ 7:51 amPatterico, I wish I had had a pre-trial “summary judgment” proceeding like this in Illinois. The prosecution always has the burden of proof but it also always has the right to try to meet it. I could not move for a directed verdict until a full trial and the prosecution resting after it had presented its case in chief.
Preponderance of the evidence, for an affirmative defense, is only required for insanity, here, BTW*. Everything else is “some evidence”.
*(If I try to explain Illinois’s alibi rule, daleyrocks will accuse me of being drunk again.)
nk (875f57) — 8/10/2012 @ 7:52 amLook the only question is how many pouches the kangaroo has at this point, the local paper is marginally less tendentious,
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-08-09/news/os-george-zimmerman-new-evidence-20120809_1_trayvon-martin-death-of-unarmed-teenager-g
narciso (ee31f1) — 8/10/2012 @ 7:54 amAnother good one, this time by Jefferson:
“The man who reads nothing is far more educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers.”
Chuck Bartowski (3bccbd) — 8/10/2012 @ 8:00 amThe law is “controversial” because leftists don’t like the idea of self defense with firearms.
SGT Ted (506d69) — 8/10/2012 @ 8:15 amSGT Ted, the law is “controversial” because the gun control advocates lie about it. Brazenly.
SPQR (26be8b) — 8/10/2012 @ 8:25 amSPQR, well, that too.
SGT Ted (506d69) — 8/10/2012 @ 8:25 amI can’t think of a news story handled worse than Zimmerman’s being attacked and defending himself.
Sadly, I bet there are stories handled this poorly or worse every day, but I just never find out about how they are distortions and lies.
Chuck’s quote from Twain is apt.
Dustin (73fead) — 8/10/2012 @ 8:28 amI just never find out about how they are distortions and lies.
Crichton’s “Murray Gell-Mann Theory of Amnesia”: Once you see how bad the press botches something you know about, you really should assume their accuracy is about the same on things you don’t know about. IOW, Twain was right.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 8/10/2012 @ 8:33 am“*(If I try to explain Illinois’s alibi rule, daleyrocks will accuse me of being drunk again.)”
nk – Surprise me and do it sober this time.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/10/2012 @ 8:45 amThe law is “controversial” because leftists don’t like the idea of self defense with firearms.
Comment by SGT Ted — 8/10/2012 @ 8:15 am
— Exactly. “If an armed intruder gets arrested he/she wouldn’t face the death penalty; therefore, how can you justify allowing homeowners to shoot armed intruders?” So goes the lefty logic. Never mind the strong possibility of an armed intruder choosing to shoot the homeowner, armed or not.
Icy (84536b) — 8/10/2012 @ 8:53 amI theorized, at the original post linked to by Insty, that Corey’s office wants to lose this on a technicality rather than take the chance of a jury acquitting, because they know that the case is a loser.
AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92) — 8/10/2012 @ 9:43 amI’m sure they would be more than happy to have the Judge find that GZ’s actions were protected by the self-defense provisions in FL law.
But, since that would mean Martin was the aggressor, the race-pimps in the media and political spheres will be outraged.
It is what it is.
I thought self defense is where you are being attacked first like Zimmerman and the witnesses relied on by the police say, whereas stand your ground is where someone is approaching you and you haven’t actually been attacked yet. Zimmerman claims he was walking away when he was attacked. How does stand your ground apply to that?
Gerald A (f26857) — 8/10/2012 @ 9:55 amUK Mail is running Martin’s photo as a child, right up near the top. Again. Gee. Imagine that.
Phillep Harding (1b8b26) — 8/10/2012 @ 10:01 amGerald A, no. “Stand your ground” means legislation that eliminated an ancient common law doctrine that created a duty to retreat in public places. Additionally Florida law created a burden for the prosecution to meet in self defense claims. The two things get combined in reference to “Stand Your Ground”.
SPQR (485b3e) — 8/10/2012 @ 10:08 amGerald A.,
Here’s an excerpt from the statement of Zimmerman’s attorney about the Florida Stand Your Ground hearing:
DRJ (a83b8b) — 8/10/2012 @ 10:09 amJeralyn Merritt writes more here on the relationship between Florida’s Stand Your Ground law and self-defense.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 8/10/2012 @ 10:15 amThis was always GZ’s best strategy; the caterwauling by the media over “Stand Your Ground” was battlefield preparation to diminish the validity of his claim prior to trial/hearing.
AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92) — 8/10/2012 @ 10:27 amSPQR – I was under the impression that the ‘duty to retreat’ was something trumped up by bleeding hearts in liberal jurisdictions, not a component of long-held common law.
The ‘Stand Your Ground’ laws are a reaction to it, stating that when you are in a place you have every right to be, you are not under any obligation to retreat when faced with violence.
While this results in the additional immunity hearing in Florida which precludes prosecution if it succeeds, it has a more important component.
If you’re on the stand and the lawyer says, “Why didn’t you run away when he was charging at you fists flying?” your lawyer stands up and says, “Objection, by law my client has no duty to retreat in the face of unlawful aggression,” or something like that.
(Wikipedia isn’t clear on the ancientness of the common law rule, alas.)
luagha (5cbe06) — 8/10/2012 @ 10:39 amAD-RtR/OS!:
caterwauling by the media over “Stand Your Ground” was battlefield preparation to diminish the validity of his claim prior to trial/hearing.
They’ve been salivating since the law was clarified/changed for the example of the white vigilante Bronson-sort gunning down a poor minority.
They thought they’d found it here. And when it turns out not to be the case, well…
“When the legend becomes fact, print the legend”.
Unix-Jedi (e0ef98) — 8/10/2012 @ 10:59 amAt least Rance was a better lawyer than Ms. Corey.
AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92) — 8/10/2012 @ 11:33 amFrom Z’s lawyer:
If the Court rules in favor of the defendant in a “Stand Your Ground” hearing, not only are criminal charges dismissed, the defendant is also immune from civil actions related to the shooting.
Comment by DRJ — 8/10/2012 @ 10:09 am
That is interesting- Do I assume correctly that one could potentially be found not guilty in a criminal trial because of self-defense, but still have to face civil litigation (like OJ innocent in criminal trial, built guilty on wrongful death civil)?
So it would make sense, even though the burden of proof is on the defense, if they make the case successfully everything goes away. If they fail, is their any prejudice going into the criminal trial?
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 8/10/2012 @ 12:30 pmDo you get to pick the judge who hears the case? Veto one you don’t want to hear it?
How about GZ’s lawyers file motion that the prosecutor so poisoned the community that GZ cannot get a fair trial and a fair jury anywhere in the US?
PCD (1d8b6d) — 8/10/2012 @ 12:35 pmOf COURSE the burden of proof for the defense is no more than “a preponderance of the evidence”! In a criminal trial, their “burden of proof” is “casting a reasonable doubt”.
A “preponderance” is substantially harder, yet the reporter makes it sound like the defense is getting away with something. *uckwits.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 8/10/2012 @ 12:59 pmI would also think that if you are on the ground, being beaten by a guy kneeling on your chest, “your duty to retreat” is moot.
I will not surprise me if the judge rules against the “stand your ground” motion because 1) Z couldn’t retreat, and 2) wasn’t standing. Stupid is as stupid does,
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 8/10/2012 @ 1:03 pmDid Zimmerman get a substitution of judge?
MD, there was a motion for one for cause. If Florida is like Illinois, the defendant needs to exercise the SOJ without cause before any substantive rulings on the case.
nk (875f57) — 8/10/2012 @ 1:21 pmnk: “The prosecution always has the burden of proof but it also always has the right to try to meet it. I could not move for a directed verdict until a full trial and the prosecution resting after it had presented its case in chief”
The pre-trial hearing is to determine whether Zimmerman can establish a defense. If the defense is established by “a preponderance of the evidence” then there is no chance that he committed the act “beyond reasonable doubt.”
There might be some constitutional problem with requiring the defendant to prove a defense before the prosecution has presented its case, but that’s not something that would help the prosecution.
egd (85c2b0) — 8/10/2012 @ 1:48 pmOf course it’s a big deal to the LATimes and anti-gun advocates such as Mayor Bloomberg. Because they are hostile to the very notion of legal self-defense. Only the Leviathan State should use force and private use of force in self-defense is “vigilantism”.
http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-04-11/news/31326828_1_mayor-bloomberg-laws-rights-of-gun-owners
Brad (8b00a4) — 8/10/2012 @ 3:54 pmThanks to professional demagogues such as Al Sharpton, but mostly thanks to left-wing agenda driven Big Media such as ABC News and the LA Times, the groundwork has been laid for riots when the charges against Zimmerman are dismissed.
The beliefs and expectations of the Black community regarding the Zimmerman case are so out of step with reality that dismissal or acquittal will provide an extraordinary shock.
Thanks a lot News Media.
Brad (8b00a4) — 8/10/2012 @ 4:03 pmIt would be astounding if the Judge ruled in Zimmerman’s favor. Not only is the judge likely still angry about the bail hearing business, unless he wants to live under constant police protection for the rest of his life he will allow the racial lynch mob a chance to convict Zimmerman for the crime of self-defense.
LockesChild (ab3535) — 8/11/2012 @ 8:09 amWhy can’t the judge just skip the hearing and declare the racist speedfreak skinhead guilty and sentence him already?
NO JUSTICE NO PEACE
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/11/2012 @ 10:27 amIt would be astounding if the Judge ruled in Zimmerman’s favor. Not only is the judge likely still angry about the bail hearing business, unless he wants to live under constant police protection for the rest of his life he will allow the racial lynch mob a chance to convict Zimmerman for the crime of self-defense.
Comment by LockesChild — 8/11/2012 @ 8:09 am
Then the judge should be impeached, tried, convicted of malfeasance, and sentenced to a long prison sentence for failing to do his duty to which he swore to do. He would be just as corrupt as if he had taken a bribe to commit an injustice. A judge is required to be unemotional and impartial in his renderings. If he cannot, then he needs to recuse himself.
peedoffamerican (606d27) — 8/11/2012 @ 11:36 amIf the Court rules in favor of the defendant in a “Stand Your Ground” hearing, not only are criminal charges dismissed, the defendant is also immune from civil actions related to the shooting.
This is why the Martin family attorneys tried to lie about a self defense justifiable homicide shooting and turn it into a white racist assassination of an innocent black teenager. There’s wrongful death lawsuit money to be made there.
SGT Ted (506d69) — 8/12/2012 @ 9:44 am