[cynwoody]

Folks have noted that Stand Your Ground doesn't seem to apply when you've got a guy sitting on you and pounding your head into the pavement.

However, Florida's version of SYG has an interesting twist: It grants Zimmerman a try at getting the whole thing thrown out before it can get started. Blogs law professor Adam Winkler:

Traditionally, one claiming self-defense would have the opportunity to raise that defense at trial before a jury. In Florida, however, the Stand Your Ground law gives defendants like Zimmerman the right to a pre-trial hearing to challenge his indictment. At this special pre-trial hearing, which will occur long before any jury trial, Zimmerman will have the opportunity to present evidence to a judge showing he acted in self-defense. If he can show that he was acting in self-defense by a "preponderance of the evidence" -- legalese for "it's more likely than not" -- then the charges against him will be dropped and he'll never face a jury. That burden of proof is not very demanding and requires a showing far less demanding than the "beyond a reasonable doubt" test used in criminal trials ordinarily.

Let's hope he has a fair judge, who doesn't give a damn what the American sheeple think!

[hoosiermama]

Check out cynwoody’s post. May not even go to trial.

[caww]

Any Attorney’s or Law people here who can confirm this possibility????????

Florida’s version of SYG has an interesting twist: It grants Zimmerman a try at getting the whole thing thrown out before it can get started. Blogs law professor Adam Winkler:

“Traditionally, one claiming self-defense would have the opportunity to raise that defense at trial before a jury. In Florida, however, the Stand Your Ground law gives defendants like Zimmerman the right to a pre-trial hearing to challenge his indictment. At this special pre-trial hearing, which will occur long before any jury trial, Zimmerman will have the opportunity to present evidence to a judge showing he acted in self-defense. If he can show that he was acting in self-defense by a “preponderance of the evidence” — legalese for “it’s more likely than not” — then the charges against him will be dropped and he’ll never face a jury. That burden of proof is not very demanding and requires a showing far less demanding than the “beyond a reasonable doubt” test used in criminal trials ordinarily.”

[caww]

Have they determined if or not “Stand Your Ground” applies to the Zimmerman case? I understood there was some questions about this and might not apply...

[RicocheT]

I hope post 7 above is correct that stand your ground can allow Zimmerman to get the charges dismissed on motion. If not, he better get a change of venue to the FL panhandle as most of central FL has been stirred up against him by the media and Black protesters. He should be allowed a jury pool that isn’t ready to convict regardless of evidence.

[hinckley buzzard]

Based on the standard of preponderance Zimmerman is clearly innocent. But this case is political, not legal, so the usual standards are irrelevant. This is the beginning of mob rule in Florida, which was tried but stifled in 2000.

[moehoward]

On Greta’s legal panel, the assumption was they’d probably skip the prelim, go straight to discovery and trial, in about 6 months.

[PapaBear3625]

At this special pre-trial hearing, which will occur long before any jury trial, Zimmerman will have the opportunity to present evidence to a judge showing he acted in self-defense. If he can show that he was acting in self-defense by a "preponderance of the evidence" -- legalese for "it's more likely than not" -- then the charges against him will be dropped and he'll never face a jury.

The Statute reads:

776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—

(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.

(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.

(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).

Looking at the text of the law, it would seem that it's the job of the prosecution to convince the judge of the validity of their "probable cause", rather than the job of the defense to convince the judge of self-defense. At trial, the prosecution would have the burden of proof of showing, beyond a reasonable doubt, that it was NOT self defense.

Then again, when has the plain text mattered to the legal system?