Stand Your Ground is just one provision of the FL self-defense law. Since GZ was pinned to the ground, that part of the law obviously doesn't apply to him.
There are two other parts of that law that are critical to GZ.
1)FL’s self defense law gives GZ the option of asking for an immunity hearing before a judge in which he only needs to prevail by a preponderance of the evidence (not proof beyond a reasonable doubt). If GZ wins at the hearing, he doesn't have to go through a full blown trial.
2)If GZ wins the immunity hearing it makes him (and his condo assoc., etc.) immune from civil suits brought by TM’s family. If he is found not guilty after a trial, Trayvon’s family could still go after him in a civil suit.
If he loses the immunity hearing, he can still claim self-defense at a trial.
The downside to asking for an immunity hearing is that each side will have insight into the trial strategy of the other and witness statements will be set in stone.
Do I think Judge Lester has the guts to free George in an immunity hearing? I would have said possibly yes, but after his hissy fit at the second bond hearing, I have changed my mind. I believe that he violated George's due process rights by allowing the prosecution to file a motion to revoke bail at a hearing that was scheduled for media access to the discovery and not allowing MOM to have time to prepare for the motion or to get GZ to the hearing. IM(never to be)HO, it was unconscionable for the judge to force MOM to defend against the motion on the fly.
Do I think that people with an agenda are using the SYG meme to attack citizens’ rights to self-defense? Absolutely yes!
Thanks Auntie Pol. :-)
You and I are in agreement regarding your opinions. I did not know about the nuances you mentioned regarding the immunity hearing.
As I mentioned before, I’m not all that familiar with how it works and applies. The civil suit angle is very interesting.
I think that downside works in the general sense, especially when the evidence is equivocal or defendant really didn't act in self defense. In this case, the evidence is so strongly in Zimmerman's favor - or better said, the evidence against his account is from unreliable witnesses (DeeDee and Sybrina) whose accounts are contradicted by on-scene eyewitnesses.
I don't see much in the way of harm to trial strategy. Zimmerman is going to tell the same story he told SPD. Twice if Judge Lester can't figure out or won't say which witnesses are more credible/reliable.
So then that's why the Trayvonistas and their legal community are so opposed to SYG -- it hits them in the civil litigation wallet.
Belated thanks for your post - I do apologize for my curt response to cuban leaf. I think I'm on too many ping lists - forest for the trees ... ;-)
Just FYI - the immunity provisions were a major part of the 1995 SYG amendments to FL self defense law.
One thing you said that I'm not certain is correct. Even if forced to go through trial I'm pretty sure that if acquitted that the immunity from civil liability still applies.
See 776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.
See Section (3) then the last sentence of Section (1).
Like this:
(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney's fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).
The Section (1) last sentence:
As used in this subsection, the term "criminal prosecution" includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
This also shows how the new immunity provisions affect several previous aspects to FL self defense law.
One last thing. Arguably if GZ is found to have acted legally in self-defense the "condo assoc." would not necessarily be off the civil liability hook.
Purely hypothetically, if the condo assoc. was aware of one of their resident/watch program guys accosting, threatening, badgering,etc. people at random and carrying a gun then the guy does validly defend himself and gets off I do not see the immunity provision necessarily protecting the condo assoc.
A personal injury attorney could easily argue that the condo assoc. had a duty to prevent the dangerous confrontations in their name even if the defendant got off on a valid self defense.
Pinging an expert for his opinion ... ;-)