Can you cite the law in question? The immunity is granted under 776.032, and doesn’t that require a hearing?
Sure, but being found not guilty now, doesn’t mean he gets immunity from a civil suit, which is what I thought you were saying. He still has to have, and win, the pre-trial immunity hearing. (Now post-trial. Aside, is this possible in FL? I thought that once waived, you didn’t get the opportunity to have it again?)
For the lawyers, FL and otherwise, who are here: Do the 5th Amendment protections against self-incrimination apply to a post-verdict hearing to determine whether a defendant should also be found immune from civil liability? (and future state criminal liability, if double jeopardy weren’t in some way applicable.) Because he’s already been found not guilty, and can’t be tried for this crime again in state court, is it correct that he doesn’t face any further criminal jeopardy for his testimony, and therefore the point behind the protection against self-incrimination shouldn’t apply? Similar to the practice of granting use or transactional immunity to a witness, in order to overcome their potentially taking the 5th?
For good, or for bad…
Wrongful death lawsuits are heard in federal court too. Explain the difference to me. I know nothing of civil law.
Lets not confuse things. I was talking about a tort not a crime. The Feds already investigated and no federal charges were filed.
If he is found not guilty under 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 of Florida laws, then that satisfies the immunity requirement.
I don’t think there was one, absent the Feds pulling a perjury trap rabbit out of their hat. (Scroll down within the link for the explanation. Popehat is a great explainer of the quirks within federal criminal law.)
But, again, NAL, and I don’t know whether some clause in the myriad texts of the USC would apply. “Three felonies a day”, yo.
The law doesn’t say that, though there may be an opinion where a judge says that a not guilty verdict means that the use of force was permitted under those three statutes. The jury can find Zimmerman not guilty for, really, any reason they want (absent some tainting of the jury deliberations, through outside info, bribery, or otherwise); the verdict by itself doesn’t say that his use of force was permitted. All it means is that the jury didn’t feel the state proved their case against the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt. Which is different than saying, “by a preponderance of the evidence, your use of deadly force was permitted under one of these three statutes.” The pre-trial immunity hearing is set up to precisely answer that question.
If there’s a case following the logic you’ve laid out, I’d love to read it. And I apologize if it’s already been cited within this lengthy thread.
Bricker (or other lawyers) - can you point me to the prohibition of defense mentioning the nature of punishment (mandatory lengths for prison sentences etc) for charged crimes in their closing?
They can find justifiable use of deadly force. It is in their instructions. I am not sure if that is mentioned in the verdict forms, but I think it is.
That was my understanding, that a hearing that specifically addressed the claim of self defense and only that, in which the claim must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence, must be held and the claimant victorious in order to get the immunity.
I second the request for a correction if this issue has been settled in a previous case.
On cursory read, I think it’s fine. I did not like this part, however:
(bolding mine)
That’s idiotic. Why not provide transcripts to the jurors so they can be accurate in their deliberations? To tell jurors they must rely solely on their notes and memory (and not the actual text of the testimony) seems to be asking for a biased verdict.
Otherwise, I didn’t see any problems with the jury instructions, I’m glad the trial is nearly over.
- Honesty
You would need something like diversity jurisdiction where the parties are from different states and the amount in controversy exceeds 75k.
ETA: Even if you somehow got it into federal court, they are (generally) obligated to use the laws of the state they sit in with torts under the shudder Erie Doctrine
The jury has to step thorough several individual findings, like the question of self-defense, and every other element. But in the end, they only say “Guilty,” or “Not guilty.” They don’t explain their decision – whether they find that Zimmerman used self-defense or that the state failed to prove the crime happened in Seminole County, they simply say “Not guilty.”
Nor do I agree that a not-guilty verdict insulates Zimmerman from a wrongful death lawsuit. Here, the parties are the State of Florida and George Zimmerman, and the state must win by showing guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
In a wrongful death civil trial, the parties would be the Martin family and George Zimmerman, and the family wins by showing by preponderance of the evidence that George did not commit the tort of wrongful death.
It’s true that 776.032 provides immunity from civil suit, but to gain that immunity, the burden of proof rests with the person claiming the immunity: HE must show, by preponderance of the evidence, that he was not engaged in an unlawful activity, was attacked in a place where he had a right to be, and stood his ground or met force with deadly force because he reasonably believed it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
Obviously the trial does not answer that question.
Even if they do, they are asking themselves if the justifiable use of force was disproved beyond a reasonable doubt. That’s not the same as deciding it was PROVED by preponderance of the evidence.
As an aside: another reason this “stand your ground” law is deeply flawed is that it takes away my right to sue someone for an unlawful death. If the prosecution is incompetent, then a Stand-Your-Ground hearing may conclude with a win for the shooter, leaving me with no day in court and no opportunity to prove my case; I’m not a party to the SYG hearing.
In a post-trial immunity hearing, can Zimmerman use his acquittal in the criminal trial as evidence?
wow -
[QUOTE=O’Mara]
11:48 a.m. ET: “You go back there, first thing you might want to consider doing – do you have a reasonable doubt that my client may have acted in self-defense?” asked O’Mara. "And if you reach that conclusion you get to stop. You really do. Why?** Because self-defense is a defense to everything. To littering, to speeding, to battery, to grand theft**, to assault, to manslaughter, to second-degree… it’s an easy decision.
[/QUOTE]
So - he’s now encouraging the jury to take the “easy decision” and at the same time telling them that ‘self defense’ is an ‘easy excuse’ ?
[QUOTE=O’mara]
11:45 a.m. ET: O’Mara says Zimmerman was the victim of ill will, spite and hatred that night.
[/QUOTE]
yet earlier, he argued that the two didn’t know each other, so therefore his client could not have formed ‘ill will’ or ‘hatred’ ?
Not really, no.
The problem again is the differing burdens of proof and the different parties. The acquittal proves that at least one element of the crime wasn’t proven by the State beyond a reasonable doubt.
But perhaps the Martin family can adduce enough evidence to show all the elements of wrongful death are proved by preponderance of the evidence.
See? If the state HAD proved their case, then the Martins can use it as evidence in their civil suit. But the state’s failure to prove their case doesn’t foreclose the possibility that the Martins can still prove theirs.
I am glad the lesser charge of manslaughter was specifically included and spelled out, so in that sense, yes I’m ‘happy’. Otherwise the instructions are pretty straightforward.
What’s the over/under on time until a verdict?
In Florida, “…when the death of a person is caused by the wrongful act, negligence, default, or breach of contract or warranty of any person . . . and the event would have entitled the person injured to maintain an action and recover damages if death had not ensued, the person . . . that would have been liable in damages if death had not ensued shall be liable for damages…”
It’s an easier case to prove.
What federal law would apply? What federal statute was violated? GZ is currently being charged with violating State of Florida laws. As I understand it, the feds can’t charge someone for violating state law. Not their jurisdiction. The feds can charge someone for violating federal law because federal laws exist that could be applicable to the situation.
IMHO, of course.