I’ve seen some people on the internet saying that the Zimmerman trial was a Stand Your Ground case, while others say it wasn’t. Is there a reliable source I can see, if only to throw a link at those who say one way or the other? Was it in fact an SYG case?
[Preemptive Mod Note]
This thread should not be used to state your own opinion as to whether or not this was a Stand Your Ground case, or to debate the question. If you can’t provide a reliable citation (not just an opinion) then don’t bother replying. If this develops into a debate it will be closed, since several Zimmerman threads already exist.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
The “Stand Your Ground” law in Florida was only relevant to the initial controversy when the police would not arrest George Zimmerman immediately after the shooting. I expect others will be able to go into more detail than me, but the trial was a relatively straightforward case of whether or not Zimmerman acted in self-defense.
By “straightforward”, I only mean the principles in question, and not the evidence or other debates in the media.
No, Stand your ground means you do not have to attempt to flee. Zimmerman’s claim was that Martin was on top of him and he was thus unable to attempt to flee. The Stand your ground was only applicable in that Zimmerman could have asked for a hearing before his trial on whether his case was self defense. He waived that hearing.
The trial is my cite.
If the defense felt it was a SYG case they would have asked for a pre-trial SYG hearing as is provided by Florida law. If during that hearing the defense proved it was a case of SYG then Zimmerman would have been immune from prosecution. But the defense did not consider it a case which fell under the Florida SYG law. There was no hearing. They went with the affirmative defense of self defense.
The prosecution did not feel it was a SYG case since they charged him with a crime. If the prosecution felt he was within his rights under the Florida SYG law then there would not have been a trial.
Neither side treated it like a SYG case. SYG was not brought up during the trial or during jury instructions. It was not a SYG case.
(FYI - I am not a lawyer or legal expert but I’ll take a shot at answering and await correction)
Everyone is entitled to self-defense of their own life and that’s the way it’s always been.
*MR. JUSTICE HOLMES delivered the opinion of the Court.
…Many respectable writers agree that, if a man reasonably believes that he is in immediate danger of death or grievous bodily harm from his assailant, he may stand his ground, and that, if he kills him, he has not succeeded the bounds of lawful self-defense. That has been the decision of this Court. Beard v. United States, 158 U. S. 550, 158 U. S. 559.
Detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife.
Therefore, in this Court at least, it is not a condition of immunity that one in that situation should pause to consider whether a reasonable man might not think it possible to fly with safety or to disable his assailant, rather than to kill him.*
In other words, a person who is facing imminent (immediate not 5 minutes from now) death or great bodily harm is not required to ponder what the law is or wonder how many times they must be punched or stabbed before they can use lethal force to end the threat to their life and limb.
So the question is, “What is SYG and how is it addressed by the court?” The Florida legislature created SYG in 2005 and is essentially a right to stand your ground or not retreat from an assailant, assuming you have a right to be where you are when the confrontation takes place. Both TM and GZ had a right to be where they were.
The FLA court treats SYG as a pre-trial motion to dismiss the charges against the defendant. Pre-trial statutory immunity hearings are heard before a judge and not a jury.
According to *Supreme Court of Florida
No. SC09-941
CLARENCE DENNIS,
Petitioner,
vs.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Respondent.
[December 16, 2010]
III. CONCLUSION
We conclude that where a criminal defendant files a motion to dismiss pursuant to section 776.032, the trial court should decide the factual question of the applicability of the statutory immunity. A motion to dismiss on the basis of section 776.032 immunity is not subject to the requirements of rule 3.190(c)(4) but instead should be treated as a motion filed pursuant to rule 3.190(b)*.
V. PRETRIAL MOTIONS AND DEFENSES
RULE 3.190. PRETRIAL MOTIONS
This -
(b) Motion to Dismiss; Grounds. All defenses available to a defendant by plea, other than not guilty, shall be made only by motion to dismiss the indictment or information, whether the same shall relate to matters of form, substance, former acquittal, former jeopardy, or any other defense.
Not this (as pertains to Florida v. Clarence Dennis) -
*(c) Time for Moving to Dismiss. Unless the court grants further time, the defendant shall move to dismiss the indictment or information either before or at arraignment. The court in its discretion may permit the defendant to plead and thereafter to file a motion to dismiss at a time to be set by the court. Except for objections based on fundamental grounds, every ground for a motion to dismiss that is not presented by a motion to dismiss within the time hereinabove provided shall be considered waived. However, the court may at any time entertain a motion to dismiss on any of the following grounds:
(4) There are no material disputed facts and the undisputed facts do not establish a prima facie case of guilt against the defendant.
The facts on which the motion is based should be alleged specifically.*
GZ did not ask the judge for a pre-trial statutory immunity hearing based on SYG. This was not a SYG case.
O’Mara stated from the very beginning of his involvment that this was a case of self-defense and not SYG. (I assume) GZ was found not guilty because the jury believed GZ was defending himself from imminent great bodily harm or death.
Or not.
It depends on what you mean by “SYG case.” Zimmerman did not take advantage of the provisions allowing a pre-trial hearing that could have granted him immunity, but the jury instructions make it clear that this was a Stand Your Ground case because there was no duty to retreat:
I’m not sure that you could have a self-defense case in Florida that didn’t involve SYG.
So there’s “Stand Your Ground” the law and “standing your ground” a common phrase that the judge (questionably?) decided to include in the jury instructions.
Is there anything about the case, then, that would call for changing the law?
I suspect that question is outside the bounds of GQ. However, SYG immunity is relevant because the majority of media outlets reported that the initial decision not to charge Zimmerman was based on SYG immunity (the Sanford PD has since denied that.) SYG civil immunity is also relevant because the Martins could face a huge legal bill if they file an OJ-style civil action and lose.
From another SYG thread:
There’s a mistake in that post. The civil immunity doctrine also wasn’t at issue in the Zimmerman trial. I moved some words around and apparently forgot to add some.
[QUOTE=Loach]
If the defense felt it was a SYG case they would have asked for a pre-trial SYG hearing as is provided by Florida law. If during that hearing the defense proved it was a case of SYG then Zimmerman would have been immune from prosecution. But the defense did not consider it a case which fell under the Florida SYG law. There was no hearing. They went with the affirmative defense of self defense.
[/QUOTE]
It’s worth noting that the pretrial hearing requirement is not in the statute and was read in by the Florida Supreme Court. Most trial courts had initially held that SYG immunity was a jury question. The jury could still have decided the case based on the “no duty to retreat” provision, had it been argued.
[QUOTE=Lord Feldon]
I’m not sure that you could have a self-defense case in Florida that didn’t involve SYG.
[/QUOTE]
The duty to retreat only applied pre-SYG when there was a contention that retreat was available. Neither side argued that it was.
I believe I heard several commentators on the CNN discussions say specifically this was not a SYG (the SYG law) case, that Zimmerman was relying on plain old self-defense.
IIRC from the discussion, SYG is more relevant when two people are facing off standing up and separated. If in fear of an escalating confrontation, the logical argument would be “if you were so scared, why did you not run away instead?” The SYG law was intended to set the standard that where the person is in the right and has the right to be there (especially inside their property/house) and was not the instigator the prosecutor cannot use the argument “you could have retreated instead of shooting”.
As mentioned, this is not terribly relevant when the guy is (allegedly, by one side’s version) on top pinning you down. Plus, it would open the debate on who was the instigator, what constitutes “instigating” the confrontation - accosting a stranger, or teh first punch?