# SYG laws Post-Zimmerman **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 14, 2013, 5:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/syg-laws-post-zimmerman/663459 "2013-07-14T05:03:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2013, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/syg-laws-post-zimmerman/663459/141 "2013-07-19T18:53:28Z")
[QUOTE=Bone] In the case of FL, where a hearing needs to be held prior to granting civil immunity, it would seem that that could address your concern since the immunity could only be sustained if self defense was determined by a preponderance of the evidence. It seems this attribute of the immunity has a worthwhile purpose of not allowing the estate of the deceased to extort the person who exercised legitimate self defense. [/QUOTE] It doesn’t matter what standard of proof is applied. You can’t foreclose a right of action against somebody who wasn’t party to the original matter. The plaintiff has no right to select the prosecutors or the issues raised at the criminal SYG hearing. To bar recovery on that basis would violate the plaintiff’s right of access to the courts, which is guaranteed by Article 21 of the Florida Constitution (“The courts shall be open to every person for redress of any injury, and justice shall be administered without sale, denial or delay.”) > [@PBear42](#): > > .I don’t have a strong opinion either way, but I’ll be surprised if an SYG hearing is entertained after acquittal. It’s a criminal law procedure, now moot. What you WANT the result to be is of no moment. No, it’s a _civil_ procedure. The hearing provided at the outset of a criminal trial has nothing to do with the civil immunity provision. That hearing was judicially created since the statute doesn’t specify whether SYG criminal immunity is a jury question. Note the language of the civil immunity provision: [QUOTE=F.S. 776.032(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). [/QUOTE] The “court” referenced is obviously the court where the civil action is filed. The court hearing the criminal matter cannot award fees and costs for a civil action that may not even have been filed when it reliquishes jurisdiction. Heck, there may not even have **been** a criminal prosecution. It stands to reason, therefore, that its holdings are not determinative of SYG civil immunity. Think about it: why would the defendant waive a defense in a civil action simply because he failed to assert it in a criminal prosecution? ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2013, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/syg-laws-post-zimmerman/663459/142 "2013-07-19T19:22:24Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > It doesn’t matter what standard of proof is applied. You can’t foreclose a right of action against somebody who wasn’t party to the original matter. The plaintiff has no right to select the prosecutors or the issues raised at the criminal SYG hearing. To bar recovery on that basis would violate the plaintiff’s right of access to the courts, which is guaranteed by Article 21 of the Florida Constitution (“The courts shall be open to every person for redress of any injury, and justice shall be administered without sale, denial or delay.”) I’m refering to the hearing in civil court, not the criminal hearing or acquittal. I may not be understanding FL law correctly, but what I’m expressing support of is the ability to ward off an actual trial through a judicial hearing to determine based on the same standard (preponderance or reasonable doubt - depending on the type of trial) if the action was legitimate self defense. If it is, then both the criminal and civil actions evaporate, respectively. I don’t think this violates the plaintiffs access to the courts, right? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2013, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/syg-laws-post-zimmerman/663459/143 "2013-07-19T19:24:35Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Think about it: why would the defendant waive a defense in a civil action simply because he failed to assert it in a criminal prosecution? I’m going to get myself in trouble by venturing into matters of civil law, but I don’t agree with you. “…if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).” If the court in that sentence is the civil court, then how is it that subsection (1) says: > [@](#): > > 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. How could the civil court find the individual immune from criminal prosecution? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2013, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/syg-laws-post-zimmerman/663459/144 "2013-07-19T19:31:25Z")
> [@](#): > > I’m refering to the hearing in civil court, not the criminal hearing or acquittal. I may not be understanding FL law correctly, but what I’m expressing support of is the ability to ward off an actual trial through a judicial hearing to determine based on the same standard (preponderance or reasonable doubt - depending on the type of trial) if the action was legitimate self defense. If it is, then both the criminal and civil actions evaporate, respectively. I don’t think this violates the plaintiffs access to the courts, right? It’s a close question. Any statutory instrument which takes factfinding power away from the jury runs the risk of violating the right of access (it’s Art. I, Section 21, not Article 21 as I seem to have posted earlier). ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2013, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/syg-laws-post-zimmerman/663459/145 "2013-07-19T19:33:49Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > How could the civil court find the individual immune from criminal prosecution? It can’t. I presume there would be two separate hearings if there were parallel criminal and civil proceedings. Maybe. I don’t think the FSC’s decision providing for a pretrial immunity hearing in a criminal case makes sense, but there you go. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2013, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/syg-laws-post-zimmerman/663459/146 "2013-07-19T19:44:14Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > It can’t. I presume there would be two separate hearings if there were parallel criminal and civil proceedings. Maybe. I don’t think the FSC’s decision providing for a pretrial immunity hearing in a criminal case makes sense, but there you go. But it exists, and so now you have to harmonize it with the existing provisions. The statute clearly doesn’t contemplate multiple hearings. The intent of legislature was clearly to immunize a person against both criminal and civil process. But at the same time, they failed to lay out any procedure to accomplish this. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2013, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/syg-laws-post-zimmerman/663459/147 "2013-07-19T19:56:01Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > But it exists, and so now you have to harmonize it with the existing provisions. The statute clearly doesn’t contemplate multiple hearings. The intent of legislature was clearly to immunize a person against both criminal and civil process. Subsection (3) specifically notes that the court (whichever one that may be) awards fees and costs “if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).” Given that the criminal tribunal cannot award fees and costs in the civil action, and that reference is made to the (presumably awarding) court _making a finding_, the civil court must have to determine for itself if SYG immunity applies. I suppose it could adopt a prior criminal finding, but that requires a hearing anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2013, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/syg-laws-post-zimmerman/663459/148 "2013-07-19T20:28:00Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Subsection (3) specifically notes that the court (whichever one that may be) awards fees and costs “if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).” Given that the criminal tribunal cannot award fees and costs in the civil action, and that reference is made to the (presumably awarding) court _making a finding_, the civil court must have to determine for itself if SYG immunity applies. I suppose it could adopt a prior criminal finding, but that requires a hearing anyway. It’s still a mess. Consider this: what if Trayvon had a child? Wouldn’t that child also have a cause of action for wrongful death? And no reason (that I know of, but, again, civil pro = uncharted territory) to join his action with his grandparents’. Correct? If that’s true, then how does his grandparents’ failure to win an SYG hearing extinguish his own interest? Now we have, potentially, one hearing for the criminal case, and one for each and every plaintiff? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2013, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/syg-laws-post-zimmerman/663459/149 "2013-07-19T20:45:10Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Wouldn’t that child also have a cause of action for wrongful death? And no reason (that I know of, but, again, civil pro = uncharted territory) to join his action with his grandparents’. Correct? Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.210(a) requires joinder of parties “if that person’s presence is necessary or proper to a complete determination of the cause.” Fed. RCP 19 similarly provides that “a person who is subject to service of process and whose joinder will not deprive the court of subject-matter jurisdiction must be joined as a party if… in that person’s absence, the court cannot accord complete relief among existing parties”. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2013, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/syg-laws-post-zimmerman/663459/150 "2013-07-19T21:08:46Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Interesting, thanks. > > Can we please leave the gun stuff out of this thread? We have eleventy billion other threads to talk about penis size and the nanny state. Situations involving SYG law seem never to arise unless somebody involved is armed. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2013, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/syg-laws-post-zimmerman/663459/151 "2013-07-19T21:10:23Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Situations involving SYG law seem never to arise unless somebody involved is armed. By armed do you mean guns? 'cuz there are SYG cases that do not involve guns. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2013, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/syg-laws-post-zimmerman/663459/152 "2013-07-19T21:10:41Z")
BTW, [protestors are camping out in Gov. Scott’s office](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/17/florida-stand-your-ground-law_n_3612566.html) demanding he call a special session of the legislature to amend Florida’s SYG law. He says he won’t. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2013, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/syg-laws-post-zimmerman/663459/153 "2013-07-19T21:12:03Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > By armed do you mean guns? 'cuz there are SYG cases that do not involve guns. You mean, where somebody is armed with a knife or something? There could be. I never heard of one, but I don’t practice criminal. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2013, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/syg-laws-post-zimmerman/663459/154 "2013-07-19T21:13:48Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > You mean, where somebody is armed with a knife or something? There could be. I never heard of one, but I don’t practice criminal. [http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/03/22/149153379/stand-your-ground-miami-judge-decides-fatal-stabbing-was-self-defense](http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/03/22/149153379/stand-your-ground-miami-judge-decides-fatal-stabbing-was-self-defense) That’s a pretty famous case. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2013, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/syg-laws-post-zimmerman/663459/155 "2013-07-19T21:15:09Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > BTW, [protestors are camping out in Gov. Scott’s office](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/17/florida-stand-your-ground-law_n_3612566.html) demanding he call a special session of the legislature to amend Florida’s SYG law. He says he won’t. What he suddenly grew some balls that he was lacking when he appointed Corey/Vyshinsky? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2013, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/syg-laws-post-zimmerman/663459/156 "2013-07-19T21:22:11Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > What he suddenly grew some balls that he was lacking when he appointed Corey/Vyshinsky? :dubious: No, you did **not** just seriously compare Angela Corey with Stalin’s pet prosecutor. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2013, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/syg-laws-post-zimmerman/663459/157 "2013-07-19T23:24:02Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.210(a) requires joinder of parties “if that person’s presence is necessary or proper to a complete determination of the cause.” Fed. RCP 19 similarly provides that “a person who is subject to service of process and whose joinder will not deprive the court of subject-matter jurisdiction must be joined as a party if… in that person’s absence, the court cannot accord complete relief among existing parties”. And that’s why I try to leaven every post I make about the civil law side of things with caveats that amount to, “I’m just guessing here…” ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2013, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/syg-laws-post-zimmerman/663459/158 "2013-07-20T01:16:04Z")
If it makes you feel any better, it did not occur to me that the kid would be an indispensible plaintiff until I tried to figure out why we don’t have parallel tort actions. ---
**Author:** ![PBear42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ecccb3/32.png) [@PBear42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PBear42)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2013, 6:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/syg-laws-post-zimmerman/663459/159 "2013-07-20T06:29:32Z")
Unfortunately, I don’t have time to address the individual posts above, but would like to note two things. First, a Florida SYG hearing very definitely is normally a criminal proceeding. See [Dennis v. State](http://lawofselfdefense.com/law_case/dennis-v-state-51-so-3d-456-fl-supreme-court-2010/) (2010). See also [here](http://www.husseinandwebber.com/stand_your_ground.html) (discussing the decision and its history). Indeed, I can find no case in which such a hearing was held in a civil wrongful death action. Second, to me, the natural reading of section 776.032(3) is that it presumes a hearing in the criminal case, which is binding in the civil one. The language again: > [@](#): > > 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). By my reading, the last clause only makes sense if one assumes a determination was made in the criminal case. It says this is binding in a subsequent civil case (even though the plaintiffs obviously can’t have been parties), to the extent even of awarding a successful SYG defendant attorneys fees. It may be that the Florida courts will reach a contrary result either way in civil cases (permitting an SYG hearing and/or holding that a criminal one isn’t binding on non-party plaintiffs). But I can see no basis in the statute or the case law to date to assume they will. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2013, 6:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/syg-laws-post-zimmerman/663459/160 "2013-07-20T06:42:34Z")
> [@PBear42](#): > > The language again:By my reading, the last clause only makes sense if one assumes a determination was made in the criminal case. It says this is binding in a subsequent civil case (even though the plaintiffs obviously can’t have been parties), to the extent even of awarding a successful SYG defendant attorneys fees. That’s a strange interpretation. How can the court “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” if the civil action cannot be filed after the criminal hearing? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/syg-laws-post-zimmerman/663459.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/syg-laws-post-zimmerman/663459.md?page=9)