Read the Peterson case I quoted from above. The way he obtains protection from the immunity statute is via a hearing at which the burden is on Zimmerman to show by preponderance of the evidence that his use of force was justified.
In my view, there was no way the prosecution at a criminal trial could carry their burden: beyond a reasonable doubt. But when, or if, the burden is shifted to Zimmerman to prove by preponderance of the evidence, the question shifts.
In my opinion, many people commenting on this case never properly understood, or internalized, just what the burden of proof meant. They said, “Zimmerman is a liar!” and expected that this allowed the jury to not only disregard Zimmerman’s story but to conclude that the opposite of his story actually happened.
But in a discussion about immunity, those assumptions are closer to accurate.
I don’t know for sure, but the law clearly states that someone who acts in justified self defence is immune from any legal action, including arrest and prosecution. It would seem to me that arresting and trying someone who is immune from that would be, at minimum, a breach of their rights that could warrant damages.
If it’s the case that he’s not immune until that’s granted by a court, this may not happen - but on a plain reading of the law, it seems that immunity is conferred by acting in self defence, not by the court, and that the court is recognising that immunity.
And I think it’s in that hearing where his injuries (however “insignificant”) will come into play, as well as the grass stains on the clothing. Since there’s really not much else, except eyewitness Good, it doesn’t strike me as all that unlikely that he’ll get his immunity, which, IMHO, is as it should be. The criminal trial itself was a witch hunt, and the people who stand to gain the most financially wouldn’t let it go in the civil courts.
Correct. I’ve heard this argument enough I think it’s time to ask this question: It has been suggested that Martin was justified in hitting Zimmerman because of Zimmerman’s actions, right? Well, Martin had a cell phone on him, but why didn’t he call the police instead of taking the law into his own hands? I find it amazing that supporters of Martin tend to completely justify or ignore the fact that Martin attacked someone. The person he attacked was not an immediate threat to him. Say what you will, but following someone, while annoying, is not a threat of serious injury it death.
Martin failed in two ways, he did not call the authorities and he decided to physically confront someone. Think of it this way, if Zimmerman had not shot Martin, would Martin been attested for assault and battery or another similar charge? My thought is yes, there is no way that he could have claimed self defense, for he had not been attacked and there was nothing to suggest his physical well being was at risk.
Once again, this whole deal was tragic and in the end A 17 year old lost his life. However, while not exclusively at fault, he did contribute significantly to the events that led up to his demise. There are no winners with this verdict. It was a correct verdict, as a conviction would have been another tragedy, but I really don’t think there is any joy in Zimmerman’s heart now. He will have to live the rest of his life with the knowledge he was involved in the death if another. Justified or not, it’s a heavy burden to carry.
I’m honestly asking this: Does not the evidence already in existence in the criminal trial already total up to a preponderance of evidence that would result in the granting of immunity at an immunity hearing?
At trial, the finders of fact are the jury, and the only question they answered is, “As a matter of fact, the state failed to prove each and every element beyond a reasonable doubt.” For all we know, the jurors were unpersuaded that the crime took place in Seminole County.
They can, but even if all six jurors stand on a stack of Bibles and proclaim their utter conviction that Zimmerman availed himself of justified self-defense, that statement is legally meaningless for purposes of immunity.
I read the Peterson v. State of Florida decision and was wondering if you think that any judge in Florida would grant a pre-trial motion for statutory immunity in light of the part of the decision that says:
“Likewise, we hold that a defendant may raise the question of statutory immunity pretrial and, when such a claim is raised, the trial court must determine whether the defendant has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the immunity attaches.”
…or does this mean that such a motion must proceed to trial?
I don’t think that quite answers the question I intended to ask, so I’ll try to make it clearer. Does the immunity only work going forward from when the court establishes it, or is it retroactive, dating from the moment of the self defence? That is, if he in the future wins an immunity hearing, does that make Zimmerman’s previous arrest and trial in violation of his immunity?
Sorry if that’s badly phrased, I hope it’s clear enough.
As I read it, there would be a motion hearing, prior to the trial, to resolve the issue of whether Zimmerman is immune to liability. If Zimmerman prevails on the motion, then the case would be dismissed, and the plaintiff would likely have to pay Zimmerman’s costs…eventually…assuming the decision stands after appeals are exhausted. If Zimmerman loses on the motion, then the case would proceed to trial.
No. Different proceedings. Zimmerman chose not to have the immunity hearing in the criminal case. Nothing that happens in any future civil litigation is going to have any effect on that criminal case, which is now over.
If the defendant wins at the pre-trial hearing, he is immune from having to proceed to trial. In other words, a person accused of a crime for which self-defense or SYG is his defense may demand a pre-trial hearing, and, at that trial, prove by preponderance of the evidence that his use of force was justified. If successful, he is immune from criminal process and civil process for the acts in question.
Because the whole immunity statute is relatively new, there are some variant cases which have never been worked out – what lawyers would say are “matters of first impression.”
I can’t find any Florida case which contemplates an accused defendant foregoing the immunity hearing, proceeding to criminal trial, gaining an acquittal, and then seeking the protection of the immunity hearing process to insulate himself from civil liability.
My best guess is that it would proceed in the same way: Zimmerman v. State of Florida, with the burden on Zimmerman to prove by preponderance that he acted justifiably.
Really? I’d expect it to be raised in a motion to dismiss in Martin v. Zimmerman, assuming a civil action is filed. Possibly even as a motion to dismiss in lieu of an answer…
It’s been asked earlier, but what federal law could Z be accused of violating? I thought the civil rights laws required a state actor and/or conspiracy with a state actor.
How does SYG come into this? Zimmerman, as the defense argued, did not have the option of flight when pinned down by Martin so surely SYG is irrelevant.