That’s traditional US law too - but this bill would reverse that.
It’s “traditional” in the sense that it worked that way at common law, but most US states including Florida have reversed the burden of proof on affirmative defenses. What this bill does is change the burden of proof at the pretrial stage, which is something totally new and unique.
Yes. In fact, we have one of the most underfunded judicial systems in the country (though to be fair we are one of the most litigious states).
Is it as bad as California, do you know? I’m a little familiar with California’s because I was a small claims court mediator.
It’s not as bad as California (or New Hampshire, which cut its judiciary’s budget so much they actually had to suspend civil jury trials for a year). I should point out that it’s a nationwide problem.
But we are certainly among the worst at funding public defense right now, and something like 23% of judgeships are vacant because there isn’t enough money to pay someone appointed to them.
So, you want to fund it, or more fairly put, you want to not fund it more, but would rather put the burden of funding it more on people that have been found not guilty?
And given your last post, apparently if you have the balls (or the lack of money yourself) you can roll the dice with an extra shitty underfunded public defender.
The system is underfunded. This new scheme would add to the funding problem.
Do you agree with these two points?
The thread is really not supposed to be about the general funding of courts and criminal defense. If you want to keep discussing it, I would prefer that it occur in a separate thread (which I will be happy to participate in). So the last thing I’ll say about it here is:
I would like to fund it more. That’s a separate issue. I don’t want to “put” the burden of funding it on anyone. I want people to continue funding their own criminal defense, as they have for all of US history and during the development of the common law system in England and Wales.
If we are going to change that, fine, but it should be a system-wide change and not one that applies only to people with itchy trigger fingers. I don’t think we can afford to do that anyway.
As a practical matter, the change will never happen, because the vast majority of people think that anyone charged with a crime probably did something wrong and that the system is too cushy already and so on. That’s why prosecution is seen as a stepping stone to higher public office, and public defense isn’t.
Public defenders aren’t shitty. They are among the best (and certainly the most trial-experienced) attorneys I know. They just have far too many cases on their collective plates.
And it’s not about rolling the dice. You only get a public defender if you can’t afford a private attorney.
Yep. Since *he pulls numbers out of his ass. * And, even a expert can have a wrong opinion.
Most I knew were quite good. But they were very underfunded and really overworked. Being underfunded means that they can’t investigate leads that would exonerate their client. The Prosecution has almost unlimited funds. ymmv. Being overworked and understaffed means their clients don’t get the attention and time they need for a good defense.
Thanks! Looks like I am going to win this by default!
Thanks! Looks like I am going to win this by default!
Yep. Hey, did you know if you quote my posts, they still see them? 
And the relevance of this is what, Really Not All That Bright? The proposed law won’t affect any misdemeanor counts, will it? It won’t affect any grand theft auto counts, will it? It won’t affect any fraud counts, will it? It won’t affect any controlled substances counts, will it?
It appears to me that the proposed law will only come into play in the minuscule number of cases in which in which a Stand Your Ground defense is raised. How many cases does this proposed law potentially effect a year - 10? 50? 100? It can’t possibly have an affect on 410,000 counts a year, can it? So there’s no way it could cost anywhere near $2.5 billion, is there? And it could save the state money if they decide to not prosecute cases that might be politically advantageous but not really winnable.
I’m not a lawyer, don’t live in Florida, don’t have access to Lexis or Westlaw but do own a dark suit and a red tie.
But, but- ** Really Not All That Bright claims he’s a LAWYER:eek:, thus according to BigT** his opinion is right and thus you are wrong. How dare you question the opinion of a lawyer?:eek:
Be careful or they will “Ignore” you too. Oh, the shame, the shame…
You either skipped ahead a bit or lost track of the discussion. I was explaining the cost of paying for the defense of every not-guilty case in response to this:
Hence I explained why it would bankrupt the state to apply this rule to every criminal case.
I didn’t object to this bill on cost grounds; as noted above, you missed part of the discussion.
That said, I’m not sure why you think the number of cases in which an SYG defense is raised is miniscule. It doesn’t just apply to homicide cases, but to most violent crimes. There are about 2,300 homicide charges filed in this state a year, and about 40,000 “other crimes against the person” (that is, crimes against the person that are not robbery, homicide or a sex crime. Self defense is not applicable to all of those counts but it could be applied to a substantial number).
Obviously self-defense is not raised in all those cases, but there is no reason it couldn’t be in many of them. That will be especially true once self-defense comes with a potential payday (not to mention an extra layer of protection against conviction).
Well, reading comprehension is not supposed to be a skill limited to us lawyers, is it? 
Did you note that Really Not All That Bright, who claims to be a lawyer, is arguing SYG with State Sen. Rob Bradley, the co-author of the Bill, and a really truly lawyer, with a Juris Doctor * and as a " assistant state attorney in the Fourth Judicial Circuit of Florida until 1998, and then worked as a special magistrate for Green Cove Springs."* wiki
Lawyers disagree too.
Tell ya what- I’ll go along with the opinion of the confirmed lawyer. You can go along with a anonymous member of a MB who claims to be one. (Not that I am saying he ain’t one, mind you…)
Sir, you dare question my questioning of a someone who’s Really Not All That Bright and a LAWYER (but I repeat myself)?
I’ll have you know I’d horsewhip you if I had a horse (and if I was Groucho Marx - I do have a mustache but not a greasepaint one).
I’m running the risk of being ignored? If ignorance is bliss, many women have me to thank for being blissfulfilled.
What can I say, I fixated on your 410,000 counts.
Partial reply, I’m working on it.
You started with 410,000 misdemeanor and felony counts disposed of in 2013 (and I’d bet my non-law license that some were individuals facing multiple counts and/or counts were dismissed) and now are at 2,300 homicide charges filed (filed, not prosecuted, and again an individual might have been charged with multiple counts).
The FBI’s Unified Crime Report for 2014 shows Florida had 1149 Murders/non-negligent manslaughters.
I haven’t been able to find your “crimes against the person” category and am trying to figure out the circumstances in which a person would use deadly force and not be charged with murder/non-negligent manslaughter or how many of them self defense could apply to.
Basically I’m trying to figure out your numbers and how many cases the proposed law could effect; probably more than 1 but less than the hyperbolic 410,000.
At one point I was a paralegal, so I have para-comprehensive reading skills
(based on the closer examination of the topic of this rant, I think [which I do, occasionally (at reasonable rates)], I think it should have had a RO: prefix or been in the Mini Rants thread)
It’s not just deadly force. It’s any justifable use of force. You can claim “SYG immunity” for a fistfight.
Anyway, you are missing the point. The 410,000 number was the number of cases that would be affected if the cost provision was applied to every criminal case, as billfish suggested. My objection to the actual bill has nothing to do with its cost.
You can look up the number of charges I referenced or the number of individual defendants here, but again, it’s irrelevant to the OP. The reason I used the number of counts is because litigation costs are severable; in civil actions (where the loser always pays the winner’s costs excluding attorney fees), costs are assessed based on each individual claim. So if I sue you on two counts, I can prevail on one and lose on the other and we both pay a portion of each other’s costs.
You have a loser pays system in Florida? That’s extremely unusual in the US, I think.
I hereby proclaim that the State should refrain from filing charges where a there is a legitimate SYG defense 
That was easy, and I didn’t even need to go to Esquire school to figger it out 
I’d like to think a thorough investigation would be done prior to charges being filed, to save the State time and resources, as well as not burdening the individual financially or cause them to plead guilty to a lessor offense to avoid the risk of being found guilty of the more serious offense(s) they hadn’t committed.