Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

STOP POLITICALLY MOTIVATED PROSECUTIONS OF SELF-DEFENSE: KYLE'S LAW
Law of Self Defense ^ | November 21, 2021 | Andrew F. Branca

Posted on 11/26/2021 4:55:34 PM PST by DoodleBob

Hey folks, I’m Attorney Andrew Branca, for Law of Self Defense, and I’d like to take just a moment to talk with you about Kyle’s Law, our proposed law for stopping politically motivated prosecutions of self-defense.

Too often, rogue prosecutors bring felony criminal charges against people who were clearly doing nothing more than defending themselves, their families, or others from violent criminal attack.

We've seen this happen in the George Zimmerman trial in Florida a decade ago, in the Kyle Rittenhouse trial just completed in Kenosha WI, and in plenty of cases in between.

These are cases where there is little or no evidence inconsistent with self-defense, such that there can no good-faith reason for a prosecutor to drag that defender to trial. The only motivation of the prosecutor is personal aggrandizement and political capital.

The real problem here is that these trials are a win-win for these rogue, politically motivated prosecutors. If the trial ends in a conviction, they won the legal case.

Even if the trial ends in an acquittal, however, as the George Zimmerman and Kyle Rittenhouse trials did, the prosecutor still wins, in the form of political capital and esteem from their own social and political community. They at least "fought the good fight" as their team sees it.

With a win either way there exists zero disincentives for prosecutors to bring felony charges even in self-defense cases where the evidence and law overwhelmingly favor the defendant, and an actual conviction is all but impossible.

D The consequences for the clearly innocent defender, however, are catastrophic no matter how strong his case of self-defense. For the lawful defender who finds himself the target of a rogue, politically motivated prosecutor, it's a lose-lose.

Sure, the defender with the evidence and law on his side will probably win an acquittal--but at what cost? Especially with the mainstream media having demonized the defender for a year or more prior to the trial--as a murderer, a racist, a white supremacist.

An acquittal after the trial does not make up for the loss of job, marriage, home, business, reputation, educational opportunities, and emotional stability. Indeed, many such acquitted defenders find it largely impossible to ever live a normal life again.

It's time to change this equation. It's time to compel prosecutors to have skin in the game, to have something to lose if they bring a laughably weak, yet horribly destructive, felony prosecution in a case of self-defense. And it's time to provide a path for the wrongfully prosecuted defender to get compensation for his monetary, reputational, and emotional damages.

Kyle's Law is my proposal to accomplish exactly that. This statutory proposal targets laughably weak prosecutions of self-defense cases, prosecutions so weak they can only be politically motivated, and without any real prospect of conviction.

What do I mean by "laughably weak" in a more objective sense? Well, at trial a prosecutor knows he will bear the burden to disprove self-defense beyond any reasonable doubt. Let's imagine that means he must disprove self-defense by 90% of the evidence. If the defendant is acquitted, that means the prosecutor fell short of that 90% threshold.

If they fall short of that threshold by a small amount, say 75%, that still looks like a reasonable self-defense prosecution to my lawyer's eye. Fair enough.

But what if the prosecutor at trial can't even disprove self-defense by a mere 50%? Not even by that mere majority of the evidence? That's not a little bit short of beyond a reasonable doubt, that's enormously short. To my eye that looks like a self-defense prosecution brought in the full knowledge that it lacks anything close to the legal merit needed for a conviction--in other words, like a prosecution brought for political purposes despite its obvious lack of legal merit.

What I propose is that in every self-defense case the jury instruction on self-defense includes a special question to the jury--if you the jury are acquitting this defendant on the grounds of self-defense, do you also find that the prosecution failed to disprove self-defense by a majority of the evidence?

If the jury agrees the prosecution failed to meet even this very low threshold, the defendant is immediately entitled to compensation for any losses resulting from this unfounded prosecution.

And that compensation shall be made both by the state generally and by the prosecutor personally.

First, the state generally: A self-defense defendant who qualifies under Kyle's Law would be entitled to monetary compensation from the state for legal expenses, lost wages, and all other economic costs associated with the unjust prosecution. (Washington state already has a statute that does precisely this, §9A.16.110, but it is the only state that does. This needs to expand to every state.)

Second, the prosecutor personally: A self-defense defendant who qualifies under Kyle's Law would be entitled to monetary compensation from the prosecutor personally for mental distress, emotional pain & suffering, lost economic/ business/educational opportunities, reputational damage, and so forth, plus any legal costs incurred to secure this compensation—and that means the suffering of both the defendant himself AND his immediate family. (No state currently has such a provision of law.)

Third, the charging officer: Too often I see a charging document sworn out by law enforcement officers and containing claims for which there is purportedly probable cause on which to base an arrest and prosecution, but which later turn out to be utterly non-existent (e.g., the charging document claim that George Zimmerman "racially profiled" Trayvon Martin, the basis for the second-degree malice murder charge against Zimmerman--in fact, no evidence of "racial profiling was ever offered at trial). Officers who swear out nonsense to facilitate a wrongful prosecution ought to be held accountable, but never are. Let's change that. Mere threat of perjury charge is not enough, because the prosecutor who induced the false claim is not then going to charge perjury over that very claim. What's needed is a private cause of action the wrongfully accused themselves can pursue against lying officer. (Added 11/21/21.)

Fourth, make probable cause hearings great again: The probable cause hearing is supposed to act as a screen to make sure that cases lacking substantive evidence don't make it to trial, to prevent unethical prosecutors from using the process itself as a punishment for those they dislike. Today's probable cause hearing is a joke, little more than a rubber stamp for a prosecutor, and no protection for the innocent defender at all. Let's make ALL probable cause hearings in self-defense cases into something akin to self-defense immunity hearings--if the prosecution can't disprove self-defense by a preponderance of the evidence at this pre-trial hearing, the matter is dismissed with prejudice, with such dismissal also triggering the other provisions of Kyle's Law. (Added 11/21/21.)

Further, if the State seeks to reimburse the prosecutor for this damage award, that reimbursement also becomes the property of the self-defense defendant.

Only by holding the state generally and the prosecutor personally both responsible for such cases of unjust persecution of self-defense cases can we keep these victims of violent attack from also becoming victims of an assaultive justice system.

At present, we are simply trying to raise awareness and build a community around this Kyle’s Law project—we are not seeking any funds or financing in any form from anyone, at least not yet.

If you'd like to join the still informal Kyle's Law community, without any cost or obligation at all, and simply for the purposes of being kept informed of our progress as we develop this legislative concept, I encourage you to type your email into the box below.

Thanks for your consideration of our Kyle's Law concept, and I look forward to having you join our modest, but rapidly growing, community focused on the legal defense of self-defense itself.

--Andrew

Attorney Andrew F. Branca
Law of Self Defense LLC


TOPICS: Miscellaneous; Society
KEYWORDS: banglist; kyleslaw; rittenhouse
Branca's daily updates on Rittenhouse's trial on Legal Insurrection and his explanation of the law surrounding the Baldwin shooting were excellent.

A state senator in Oklahoma has introduced such legislation.

This should have broad appeal...indeed, this was the crux of Rittenhouse's BLM comment:

I’m not a racist person. I support the BLM movement. I support peacefully demonstrating. And I believe there needs to be change, I believe there’s a lot of prosecutorial misconduct, not just in my case, but in other cases. And it’s just amazing to see how much a prosecutor can take advantage of somebody. If they did this to me, imagine what they could have done to a person of color who doesn’t maybe have the resources I do or is not widely publicized like my case.

1 posted on 11/26/2021 4:55:34 PM PST by DoodleBob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: DoodleBob

You will never get a “prosecutor personally liable” law. Possibly a “immediate dismissal from the position” would be good.

I have no problem with the governmental body getting stuck with the bill. Adding in a “cannot be covered by insurance or the raising of funds via bonds or other financial instruments of over three years in payback duration” clause would cause immediate pain to the citizens who make very poor voting choices.


2 posted on 11/26/2021 5:09:06 PM PST by The Antiyuppie (When small men cast long shadows, then it is very late in the day.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoodleBob

Problem with doing things like this is the people behind it can turn out to be the perpetrators of the same thing.

Look at America’s Most Wanted’s John Walsh and “Megan’s Law” signed by Bill Clinton supposedly to help protect against child predators.

Walsh has got his own daughter, fairly credibly in my opinion, coming out with information tying Walsh himself to child sex trafficking.


3 posted on 11/26/2021 5:10:45 PM PST by reasonisfaith (What are the implications if the Resurrection of Christ is a true event in history?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reasonisfaith

These laws and the feelings surrounding them give cover for criminals pretending to be the good guys.


4 posted on 11/26/2021 5:15:57 PM PST by reasonisfaith (What are the implications if the Resurrection of Christ is a true event in history?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: reasonisfaith

??? Really? What’s his daughter’s name, and do you have a link to any of her allegations?


5 posted on 11/26/2021 5:28:22 PM PST by one guy in new jersey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: DoodleBob

start by charging them wi perjury like anybody else


6 posted on 11/26/2021 5:36:53 PM PST by Chode (there is no fall back position, there's no rally point, there is no LZ... we're on our own. #FJB)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: one guy in new jersey

Her name is Megan.

I don’t know for sure if she’s fully credible. But the pieces of the puzzle seem to be in place.

https://www.bitchute.com/video/WGBUFJTCohya/


7 posted on 11/26/2021 6:08:06 PM PST by reasonisfaith (What are the implications if the Resurrection of Christ is a true event in history?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: reasonisfaith

Thx.


8 posted on 11/26/2021 6:21:30 PM PST by one guy in new jersey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: DoodleBob

I like it.


9 posted on 11/26/2021 7:12:06 PM PST by curious7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reasonisfaith

If it’s on BitChute it’s not credible.


10 posted on 11/26/2021 7:27:44 PM PST by TexasGurl24
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: TexasGurl24

What you mean to say is if it’s on Bitchute it’s either credible or not credible.


11 posted on 11/26/2021 7:58:44 PM PST by reasonisfaith (What are the implications if the Resurrection of Christ is a true event in history?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: reasonisfaith

No.


12 posted on 11/26/2021 8:11:51 PM PST by TexasGurl24
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: TexasGurl24

Based on your response here, I feel a lot more comfortable trusting some of the content on Bitchute than trusting anything you say.


13 posted on 11/26/2021 9:47:22 PM PST by reasonisfaith (What are the implications if the Resurrection of Christ is a true event in history?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson