Posted on 04/15/2012 1:01:36 PM PDT by ironman
Now that prosecutors have brought charges against George Zimmerman, you probably think that a jury is going to hear the facts and decide the case. Think again. Under Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law, if George Zimmerman can convince a judge that he acted justifiably, he is entitled to immunity from prosecution. That means no jury; no conviction; no jail. Think of it as a big "Get Out of Jail Free" card. It is worth repeating: Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law does not just provide an affirmative defense; it provides immunity. The distinction is extremely significant...
Thus, when looking at the elements that Zimmerman must establish to prove he acted justifiably, it seems reasonably certain that Zimmerman can prove by a preponderance of the evidence that: 1) he was not otherwise engaged in unlawful activity; 2) he was at a place where he had a right to be; 3) he was attacked; and 4) he reasonably feared he would lose his life or suffer great bodily injury. The State has never alleged--nor could they--that Zimmerman's following of Trayvon Martin was an unlawful activity; or that it placed Zimmerman at a location where Zimmerman had no right to be. Similarly, as already stated, the State does not seem to have an eye-witness to the initial physical confrontation between Zimmerman and Martin. Therefore, it will be extremely difficult for the State to contradict Zimmerman's claim that Martin attacked him and bashed his head into the concrete, creating for Zimmerman a well-founded fear of great bodily injury.....
Make no mistake: George Zimmerman has a real chance of avoiding a jury. All he has to do is convince a judge, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he acted in justifiable self-defense.
(Excerpt) Read more at southfloridacriminallawyersblog.com ...
The jury will take to the streets.
Not only that, but I read in another article that he cannot be sued!
If he gets released on the “Stand your Ground” law, then expect Eric Holder to charge him with a Civil Rights violation.
2) he was at a place where he had a right to be; HE WAS.
3) he was attacked; HE WAS
4) he reasonably feared he would lose his life or suffer great bodily injury; I'M SURE HE DID.
"Stand your ground" or "self defense", this will not go to trial.
What are the odds that the justice system will work as it was intended to, throughout the rest of the process? It seems that pressure from the mob caused the Special Prosecutor to lay charges, without a reasonable expectation of conviction. Why should anyone trust the first judge in the case to do the right thing; rather than the expedient thing?
Cars will burn. People will die.
This may be one of the rare cases where a bench trial might give the defendant a better chance of winning an outright acquittal than a jury trial.
You’re talking about a new ex post facto law i.e. defending oneself while white (DOWW). That could start CW-II on the spot.
Ping!
Am I mistaken but I thought there was an eye-witness to Martin pounding Zimmerman's head into the sidewalk.
Yes it will, no judge wants his home picketed by Al Sharpton.
What is likely to happen, however, is that his defense in a civil suit would involve a cross-claim against the homeowners' association for indemnification. Basically, this means that if he was acting in some kind of official capacity for the association as a volunteer, the association may be obligated to pay not only any judgement against him, but also the cost of defending him in civil court.
This would all depend on one or more of three important considerations: (1) Florida law as it relates to not-for-profit corporations; (2) the bylaws of the homeowners' association; and (3) the ultimate disposition of the criminal charges against Zimmerman. Item (3) is critical because the association would probably have no legal obligation to indemnify Zimmerman if he is convicted of a crime.
I have read about this “stand your ground” immunity other places as well.
The question is: who has the responsibility of proof to establish immunity?
Is it up to Zimmerman to prove? If so, does that mean he must testify at the immunity hearing — and if he does testity, but fails to establish immunity, can his testimony then be used against him?
Or, does his attorney merely need to *claim* immunity and then it’s up to the prosecution to prove he does not meet the requirements?
That's a triable fact. That, in fact, is the purpose of a jury.
I think the Florida “Stand Your Ground” law specifically prohibits someone who is innocent under that law from being sued by other “involved” parties (say, Martin’s parents for example).
“But in another aspect peculiar to Florida, if the appeals court sides with Zimmerman, not only will he be forever immune from facing criminal charges for shooting the 17-year-old Martin - even if new evidence or witnesses surface - he could not even be sued for civil damages by Martin’s family for wrongfully causing his death....”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2872174/posts
“he was not otherwise engaged in unlawful activity; HE WAS NOT.
2) he was at a place where he had a right to be; HE WAS.
3) he was attacked; HE WAS
4) he reasonably feared he would lose his life or suffer great bodily injury; I’M SURE HE DID.
“Stand your ground” or “self defense”, this will not go to trial. “
Let us hope outside threats don’t sway the judge.
This is an assertion, not a fact. IF he assaulted Trayvon when they came face to face, that was unlawful assault and possibly aggravated assault and his self-defense claim is no longer valid.
2) he was at a place where he had a right to be; HE WAS.
True.
3) he was attacked; HE WAS
This is again an assertion, not a fact. We don't know who attacked whom. It seems likely he was losing the fight when he fired. This does not prove he didn't start the fight.
However, since the prosecution must disprove his story, it seems unlikely they'll be able to do so. Political issues are obviously much more important than the facts of the case.
We DO NOT KNOW what happened in those seconds between Trayvon getting off the phone with his sweetie and the eyewitnesses looking out the window because of the screaming outside. From a legal standpoint what happened in those seconds is the only real issue. Unfortunately, the only evidence for what happened is Z's story.
Assuming he has an honest judge. I hope so, but don't count on it.
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.