It seems that 'stand your ground' gave Zimmerman a much easier bar to reach. Some argue that it was decisive:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2013/07/how_much_is_about_florida_law.php?ref=fpblg
On the other hand, Eugene Volokh argues that in fact the law of self-defense is the same in Florida as the rest of the country-with the exception of Ohio.
"Who should bear the burden of proving or disproving self-defense in criminal cases, and by what quantum (preponderance of the evidence, clear and convincing evidence, or beyond a reasonable doubt), is an interesting question. But on this point, Florida law is precisely the same as in nearly all other states: In 49 of the 50 states, once the defense introducing any evidence of possible self-defense, the prosecution must disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt."
"This wasn’t always the rule. The English common law rule at the time of the Framing was that the defense must prove self-defense by a preponderance of the evidence, and Ohio still follows that rule; the Supreme Court has held (Martin v. Ohio (1987)) that placing this burden on the accused is constitutional. But to my knowledge, only Ohio still takes the view — all the other states do not."
http://www.volokh.com/2013/07/14/burden-and-quantum-of-proof-on-self-defense/?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed
While V notes that there's no reason in theory the law couldn't go back to the way of Ohio, he suggests that this would in general increase the burden on defendants.
"Of course this doesn’t dispose of what the rule ought to be. One way of thinking about that policy question is that the nearly unanimous rule takes the view, “Better that 10 guilty killers go free than one person who killed in proper self-defense go to prison for a long time (or be executed).” The Ohio rule, which is also the historical Framing-era rule is, “It’s slightly worse for one guilty killer to go free than for one person who killed in proper self-defense to go to prison for a long time (or be executed).” And of course one can consider variations of these rules as one shifts the burden of proof, or sets a quantum of proof at some other place, such as clear and convincing evidence."
After all, the U.S. system is supposed to hold us as innocent until proven guilty. On the other hand, the commentator Carl N. Brown quotes from the instructions received by the Zimmerman trial jurors:
"A person is justified in using deadly force if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself."
"In deciding whether George Zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you must judge him by the circumstances by which he was surrounded at the time the force was used. The danger facing George Zimmerman need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. Based upon appearances, George Zimmerman must have actually believed that the danger was real."
"If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony."
"In considering the issue of self-defense, you may take into account the relative physical abilities and capacities of George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin."
"If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether George Zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find George Zimmerman not guilty." "However, if from the evidence you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that George Zimmerman was not justified in the use of deadly force, you should find him guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proved."
This certainly makes it sound as if it was very weighted in Zimmerman's favor and that Stand Your Ground was a big part of the verdict. The instruction to consider the 'relative physical capacities and abilities' also seems to really be favorable to Zimmerman as well. It seems a rather arbitrary thing for jurors to be assessing.
It also sounds as if Stand Your Ground gives very broad rights to 'stand your ground' as the danger to Zimmerman need not even have been actual. I've heard some commentators claim that SYG wasn't a major factor in the decision. These instructions to the jury seem to suggest otherwise. Would jury instructions in other states sound anything like this?
I notice that Michael Jackson's former attorney argued on MSNBC yesterday that this verdict wouldn't have happened in many other states and localities.
UPDATE: I see that another commentator at Volkh, LongTom, argues that states do testify at least in what constitutes self-defense:
"While this specific observation may be accurate, states DO differ as to the standard the prosecution must meet to dispose of the self-defense argument. In Massachusetts, for instance, the state may prove only that "the defendant did not do everything reasonable in the circumstances to avoid physical combat before resorting to force." Zimmerman obviously didn't do ANYTHING reasonable to avoid combat--he instigated it, and would indubitably have been convicted in Mass. Florida law seems to specifically deny the state this chain-of-events argument, saying only that if the defendant ever reasonably felt endangered, he could blast away."
In Florida, then, there seems to me a considerably higher threshold.
I’m a criminal defense lawyer in Wisconsin, but I’ll tell you my reaction to the Zimmerman verdict today. I’ve had friends in Florida asking for my take. I haven’t watched the trial very closely (it seems like an ordinary criminal case to me in many respects). But I was astounded that the defense would put on a “self-defense” argument without the defendant testifying. In most civilized jurisdictions, the burden is on the defense to prove, at least more likely than not, that the law breaking was done for reasons of self-defense. I couldn’t figure out how they could do this without the defendant’s testimony.
I got curious and read the jury instructions Friday night and, I was wrong. In Florida, if self-defense is even suggested, it’s the states obligation to prove it’s absence beyond a reasonable doubt(!). That’s crazy. But ‘not guilty’ was certainly a reasonable result in this case. As I told in friend in Tampa today though, if you’re ever in a heated argument with anyone, and you’re pretty sure there aren’t any witnesses, it’s always best to kill the other person. They can’t testify, you don’t have to testify, no one else has any idea what happened; how can the state ever prove beyond a doubt is wasn’t self-defense? Holy crap! What kind of system is that?
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2013/07/how_much_is_about_florida_law.php?ref=fpblg
On the other hand, Eugene Volokh argues that in fact the law of self-defense is the same in Florida as the rest of the country-with the exception of Ohio.
"Who should bear the burden of proving or disproving self-defense in criminal cases, and by what quantum (preponderance of the evidence, clear and convincing evidence, or beyond a reasonable doubt), is an interesting question. But on this point, Florida law is precisely the same as in nearly all other states: In 49 of the 50 states, once the defense introducing any evidence of possible self-defense, the prosecution must disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt."
"This wasn’t always the rule. The English common law rule at the time of the Framing was that the defense must prove self-defense by a preponderance of the evidence, and Ohio still follows that rule; the Supreme Court has held (Martin v. Ohio (1987)) that placing this burden on the accused is constitutional. But to my knowledge, only Ohio still takes the view — all the other states do not."
http://www.volokh.com/2013/07/14/burden-and-quantum-of-proof-on-self-defense/?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed
While V notes that there's no reason in theory the law couldn't go back to the way of Ohio, he suggests that this would in general increase the burden on defendants.
"Of course this doesn’t dispose of what the rule ought to be. One way of thinking about that policy question is that the nearly unanimous rule takes the view, “Better that 10 guilty killers go free than one person who killed in proper self-defense go to prison for a long time (or be executed).” The Ohio rule, which is also the historical Framing-era rule is, “It’s slightly worse for one guilty killer to go free than for one person who killed in proper self-defense to go to prison for a long time (or be executed).” And of course one can consider variations of these rules as one shifts the burden of proof, or sets a quantum of proof at some other place, such as clear and convincing evidence."
After all, the U.S. system is supposed to hold us as innocent until proven guilty. On the other hand, the commentator Carl N. Brown quotes from the instructions received by the Zimmerman trial jurors:
"A person is justified in using deadly force if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself."
"In deciding whether George Zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you must judge him by the circumstances by which he was surrounded at the time the force was used. The danger facing George Zimmerman need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. Based upon appearances, George Zimmerman must have actually believed that the danger was real."
"If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony."
"In considering the issue of self-defense, you may take into account the relative physical abilities and capacities of George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin."
"If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether George Zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find George Zimmerman not guilty." "However, if from the evidence you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that George Zimmerman was not justified in the use of deadly force, you should find him guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proved."
This certainly makes it sound as if it was very weighted in Zimmerman's favor and that Stand Your Ground was a big part of the verdict. The instruction to consider the 'relative physical capacities and abilities' also seems to really be favorable to Zimmerman as well. It seems a rather arbitrary thing for jurors to be assessing.
It also sounds as if Stand Your Ground gives very broad rights to 'stand your ground' as the danger to Zimmerman need not even have been actual. I've heard some commentators claim that SYG wasn't a major factor in the decision. These instructions to the jury seem to suggest otherwise. Would jury instructions in other states sound anything like this?
I notice that Michael Jackson's former attorney argued on MSNBC yesterday that this verdict wouldn't have happened in many other states and localities.
UPDATE: I see that another commentator at Volkh, LongTom, argues that states do testify at least in what constitutes self-defense:
"While this specific observation may be accurate, states DO differ as to the standard the prosecution must meet to dispose of the self-defense argument. In Massachusetts, for instance, the state may prove only that "the defendant did not do everything reasonable in the circumstances to avoid physical combat before resorting to force." Zimmerman obviously didn't do ANYTHING reasonable to avoid combat--he instigated it, and would indubitably have been convicted in Mass. Florida law seems to specifically deny the state this chain-of-events argument, saying only that if the defendant ever reasonably felt endangered, he could blast away."
In Florida, then, there seems to me a considerably higher threshold.
First, Stand Your Ground is NOT an issue in the Zimmerman case. He never asserted it as a defense.
ReplyDeleteSecond, self-defense is an option for anyone, black, white, Chinese.... As this 2010 story makes clear;
http://www.examiner.com/article/elderly-man-shoots-violent-intruder-self-defense
' A few examples: This armed 85 year old woman held a home invader at gunpoint, and made him call the police on himself. This armed 93 year old man shot a home invader in self defense after the home invader began to attack him. This armed 70 year old woman held an intruder at gunpoint until the police arrived to arrest him. This armed 91 year old man used his handgun to fend off two home invader who had broken in and threatened his wheelchair-bound wife with their guns. This armed 84 year old man used his handgun to stop a criminal who repeatedly tried to enter his home through the front door, back door, and a window.'
Patrck, first of all, the post is something of a question. I've heard conflicting stories regarding its importance in this case. I'm aware it can be used by anyone. However, from what I understand the law has seemed to lead to more violent confronations and deaths by handguns.
ReplyDeleteAlso if you look at the instructions the jurors were giving, they seem to be based on stand your ground in part. They make the point that there is no need to flee if there's a confronation but rather 'stand your ground.' Did you read it?
While you claim I do poor research because I ask for documentation, I do provide documentation yet I don't see that you actually read it. Let me requote the part that sounds to me like 'stand your ground'
""If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony."
This even says the words 'stand your ground.' So whether or not the defense used SYG, it seems that it's interwoven into the fabric of Florida law.
At a minimum, SYG laws don't decrease violence.
ReplyDeletehttp://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/06/12/498014/study-stand-your-ground-increase-homocides/