Will someone please explain if stand your ground was used as a defense in the Zimmerman trial?

[Skwmom]

I heard the following on CNN and MSNBC:

1. To use stand your ground as a defense the defendant's attorney must make a request to have a stand your ground hearing prior to trial. In the separate hearing a judge decides whether it can be used and the defendant is required to testify.

2. Zimmerman waived the right to use stand your ground as a defense because they did not request a stand your ground hearing prior to trial.

3. Zimmerman's attorney has said he will ask for a stand your ground hearing and get immunity from civil liability.

4. The B-37 juror said she considered stand your ground in finding Zimmerman not guilty and stated that "George" had a right to stand his ground.

5. A poster on another thread wrote that stand your ground was read to the jurors. Though one poster wrote that the instructions weren't the same as the stand your ground statute, if the poster making the reply was correct, the judge's instructions contained the same language used in the stand your ground statute.

6. All Sharpton said on a show last night that stand your ground was not used in the Zimmerman trial (but is sure sounds like it was used even though no hearing on the use of stand your ground took place).

So did the judge allow the use of a stand your ground defense without following proper procedure?

[Little Star]

1. I think the jury instructions may have talked about SYG. But I'm not sure.

[bettyellen]

4. I heard the judge mention SYG during the instructions- but did not hear what

she actually said about it. But she did reference it during the jury instructions. And it was not supposed to be a SYG case.

[Little Star]

5. I thought I heard somewhere that SYG is actually part of the...

self defense law in FL. But I'm not sure about that.

[hack89]

6. There is no separate SYG law

they added a sentence to the existing self defense law. Any instruction to the jury that included Florida's self defense law would have to mention SYG.

[Skwmom]

9. Then why the requirement for a separate hearing in order for "stand your ground" to be used?

Is it correct that you have to have a hearing prior to trial to an employ a stand your ground defense? And if so, why would you be able to include it in jury instructions if you didn't follow the required procedure?

It would seem that the procedure would be intended as some type of "safeguard" to prevent the inappropriate use of stand your ground. If the judge can just insert the stand your ground defense in the jury instructions, the procedural "safeguard" is meaningless.

[hack89]

12. There is a separate law regarding immunity from criminal and civil actions

regarding justifiable use of force. That is the statute that authorizes the separate hearing - note that the hearing is not just for SYG situations but any self defense situation. It precedes the addition of SYG to the self defense law.

Z did not ask for an immunity hearing - the defense did not want to show their evidence to the prosecution before the trial. That doesn't mean that Z could not bring up stand your ground during the trial itself. You do not have to have a hearing to use SYG as a defense.

The jury saw the one and only statute on the use of deadly force in self defense. SYG is one part of the statute.

776.012?Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1)?He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2)?Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

[Skwmom]

20. Thanks for the clarification.

I think the cable "news" channels could do a better job of explaining Florida law and what role stand your ground played in the trial.

[Yo_Mama]

26. That's an additional protection for the defendant, not a requirement.

Florida laws impose a requirement for the police not to arrest without probable cause to believe that the self-defense claim is invalid.

You can't arrest ANYONE without probable cause to believe that they have committed a crime.

If the police do arrest, the defendant is then allowed the option to do an SYG hearing to have a judge review the determination of probable cause, which is really a habeas corpus hearing, and is a general right of any arrested person within 30 days of arrest.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0900-0999/0907/Sections/0907.045.html
General info on Habeas corpus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus

Because under FL statutes, grounds for arrest in a killing with an asserted self-defense claim require not just a body and probable cause to believe that the detained person turned the living person into that body, but also probable cause to believe that the self-defense claim will not hold up, probable cause for all those elements would have to be asserted and assessed as credible by the presiding judge in order for the detained person to be legally held by the state.

Not requesting a hearing does not mean that the self-defense claim is invalid in any way. Probable cause is a much lower standard of proof than that required for conviction.

[LaydeeBug]

2. It was NOT used. They used plain self defense. nt

[Eleanors38]

3. The defense did not employ SYG, and did not request

a hearing for such.

The notion that a victim does not have a "duty to run" (or "must show he/she was first harmed&quot is embedded in the common law in most states; SYG codifies this in many states. That is probably why the judge included a SYG-like statement to the jurors, IMO.

[Horse with no Name]

7. Not officially

but the law was used in the determination to let Georgie go home.

It was also used by the jury in deciding his fate.

Of course, he didn't have to meet the burden of the law--because it wasn't "officially" used.

[Skwmom]

13. I agree. That looks like what they did.

What I don't understand is, why is this allowed? If a judge instructs the jury on a stand your ground defense then the jury is going to use that in deliberations (which Juror B37 admitted to doing).

Juror B37 in her interview said that she found "George" not guilty because of "the heat of the moment and stand your ground."

The requirement of a stand your ground hearing where a defendant is required to testify before it can be used at trial would seem to be some type of safeguard to guard against its improper use at trial. But if it can just be included in jury instructions and considered during deliberations that makes the requirement for a hearing meaningless.

Of course, this is assuming that a hearing is required. If it is, the way that this requirement was so easily circumvented is unbelievable.

[Yo_Mama]

23. I think because of the issue over Zimmerman getting out of his vehicle

Jury instructions are just the judge telling the jury what all of the law is that might in any way be applicable to the facts of the case. The judge is not supposed to presume anything about the jury's deliberations.

And there's a lot in the jury instructions that seems superfluous, such as determining whether Zimmerman caused Martin's death. That was never an issue in the trial. But legally that is one of the bases of conviction, so it had to be in there.

[anomiep]

8. SYG is about not having a duty to retreat

Even under law which would have required a duty to retreat, Zimmerman's claim is that Martin was on top of him and he would not have been able to retreat, so the duty to retreat (under Zimmerman's version) would not have applied.

[Skwmom]

10. Wouldn't it depend when the duty to retreat kicked in?

[anomiep]

16. Under duty to retreat law

The duty to retreat doesn't 'kick in', it is just always there, and doesn't apply if you can't retreat safely.

[Skwmom]

24. What if you could safely retreat but decide to pursue and escalate a situation

to the point where you can't safely retreat? Are you telling me that you would then have no duty to retreat? That would sure make it easy to get away with murder.

I bet Zimmerman is really thankful that he took that class which discussed in detail the stand your ground laws.

[anomiep]

25. It depends on your actions, the other person's actions and the circumstances

Even under the SYG law, in Florida (my state law is different, but has similar requirements re. provocation), if you provoke using force, if you then back down and try to do everything you can to stop, and the other person doesn't stop, the other person may be putting you in a position where you are justified.

Generally, if the threat has stopped, you have to stop, and if you don't, you can switch roles from defender to aggressor. That also may apply in states without a stand your ground law, where a duty to retreat applies generally.

As a for instance, say someone walks up to you and punches you. Their punch is a provocation (not for deadly force, but for force). You swing back and knock them on the side of the head. That punch of yours knocks them somewhat silly and they then start backing off and saying "Ok, ok, ok, stop, stop, stop, you win" while *clearly* retreating from you.

Do you think you would be justified in continuing to punch them, on the basis that they swung first, under those circumstances? Do you think you would be justified in knocking them off their feet, jumping on top of them, and pounding on their face with your fists?

Their initial provocation may have justified your initial defense - but when they start backing off, and saying stop, etc, it is not in their hands what you do - it is on you to stop when their use of force has actually stopped, and in fact you are generally legally required to do so (although I am not a lawyer and none of this should be considered legal advice) - and it certainly *can* be the case that your actions put them in a position where they can no longer reasonably retreat. Under SYG law or otherwise.

[anomiep]

28. And as a real life example

When I was 14, on New Year's Eve I was sitting on a very short wall that had a sidewalk in front of it, and a small hill, with sidewalk on the bottom of it, to the back of it. (the 'wall' was maybe high enough to make a good chair for a 14 year old "taller than most but not the tallest" kid, by the time I was 18 I was 6'2&quot . A friend of mine was sitting next to me and we were just talking about whatever 14 year old kids talk about.

There was another kid who lived in the same neighborhood, slightly younger than I was, who was basically a bully. That kid came at a full tilt run from the front (where the sidewalk is) and tackled me off the wall (toward the back, where the small hill was - the hill was maybe five or six feet higher then the sidewalk at the bottom).

My only thought when he tackled me was "land on top" ... and I did, when we hit the bottom of the hill I was on top, and I had somehow gotten him in a headlock as we rolled down the hill, and I am pretty sure he smacked his head on the sidewalk when we hit it, although I didn't intentionally try to make that happen. So after his initial provocation, and my defense, he couldn't really do anything to me.

Right there, in that instant of time where we hit the sidewalk at the bottom of the hill, it should be pretty clear I was not the aggressor and the force I used (putting him in a headlock, and landing on top) was provoked.

But in that same instant, I had a choice. He no longer had a choice, he'd done what he'd done and it resulted in his being in a position where he pretty clearly could not retreat or even hurt me anymore.

I could have pounded him in the face until his nose was bloody and his eyes were black and blue. I could have then kept going until I'd beaten him unconscious or worse. With him being unable to retreat from that, would my doing that have been justified? No, I don't think so, because he was literally not in a position where he could harm me at that point.

What I actually did was ask him: "If I let you go, are you going to leave me alone?". He said yes - and I let him go, he left, and he never tried to bully me again - ever.

When that occurred, I was not analyzing it the way I am analyzing it now, as 'well, I can do this and it wouldn't be justified under the law, or I could have done that and it would be justified". At that point, I had never even examined the law in respect to self defense. I just acted the way I acted based on who I was and how I'd been brought up. But it is a pretty good example of how a defender *could* turn what is a justified use of force into an unjustified use of force - if I had made a different decision, if I had chosen to beat him silly once I had full advantage and ability to, I would have put myself in the wrong, despite being in the right initially.

[DanTex]

11. Yes and no.

One provision of the Florida SYG law allows for a special hearing, during which the defendant can claim self-defense, and if a judge accepts his claim, then the defendant gets immunity from prosecution and also from civil trials.

Zimmerman did not choose that option, so in that sense the answer is no.

However, that is not the only part of the SYG law. What SYG means is that a person can use deadly force even in situations where he or she could have safely retreated and escaped any injury without using deadly force. This part of the SYG law was explicitly included as part of the jury instructions (I believe the actual words "stand your ground" were in the instructions), so SYG did play a role in the trial.

Of course, the jury does not have to explain why they reach a certain verdict, so there is no way to know whether the jurors used the SYG clause as part of their rationale for letting Zimmerman go, or whether they would have found him guilty if not for Stand Your Ground.

[Skwmom]

18. Thanks for the clarification.

When interviewed, Juror B37 said she found George not guilty because of the "heat of the moment and stand your ground" so it was definitely part of her rationale for letting Zimmerman go. Of course, if you took out stand your ground maybe she would have fallen back to some other reasoning (she was definitely pro Zimmerman). But whether she and the other two jurors initially voting not guilty would have been able to convince the other 3 who initially voted guilty is another matter. I think the stand your ground probably made it a lot easier for the them to convince the other 3 to change their vote to not guilty.

What was confusing was people saying that stand your ground was not used in the Zimmerman trial. Obviously it was.

They need to get rid of stand your ground.

[oldhippie]

14. Getting a yes/no answer on a legal issue on DU .....

... is not generally a winning situation.

[jbond56]

15. Juror B37 says yes

4. Verdict hinged on “Stand Your Ground” law, even though Zimmerman did not use it in his defense.

COOPER: Because of the two options you had, second degree murder or manslaughter, you felt neither applied?

JUROR: Right. Because of the heat of the moment and the Stand Your Ground. He had a right to defend himself. If he felt threatened that his life was going to be taken away from him or he was going to have bodily harm, he had a right.

[ctaylors6]

17. In FL, legislation called SYG had more than one part

1 part added the immunity provision and is what states that immunity is from all prosecution including arrest. The immunity provision allows for a pretrial hearing on immunity. It's my understanding the police relied on this law to some extent to not arrest Zimmerman in the first place. Zimmerman waived the pretrial hearing.

2nd part removed the duty to retreat from the general self-defense law in Florida. I believe at least 30 other states have also removed the duty to retreat.

The general self-defense law WAS used in the Zimmerman trial - says that if you're somewhere you're legally allowed to be you have no duty to retreat when defending yourself, ie you can stand your ground. There have been many confusing discussions I've read on DU about whether SYG "applies" or not. I even read one very wrong post in which someone said the judge erred because she allowed the self-defense instruction that included this general self-defense law language.

I personally don't know how to answer the question if SYG "applied" because I'm not sure what people are asking when they say that since there were different parts of the SYG. And when they're talking about the duty to retreat, that wasn't really a point of dispute when the gun was fired. (For example, if someone is pinned down and getting his head bashed into the ground, even in a duty to retreat jurisdiction, the facts would most likely not require him to retreat to claim self-defense.)

[jwirr]

19. It was not used but IMO it was the means that allowed Z to think he had a right to carry a

gun as a neighborhood watch wanta be and to use it without ever having to explain why he was following a boy and why he shot him just 3 houses away from the home Trayvon lived in.

[Yo_Mama]

21. No, because according to the statement Zimmerman gave the police

he never had an opportunity to leave the final confrontation, therefore the "duty to retreat" standard of common law would not apply in this case whether it were law or not in FL. His statement was at least partially confirmed by the statements of other witnesses.

However, the overall statutes in FL related to self-defense claims did mean that the police could not arrest Zimmerman until it was determined that they had probable cause to determine that a crime had occurred.

The duty to retreat always meant the duty to retreat before using deadly force IF YOU COULD retreat, and generally there was a recognized exception if defenseless others were involved. In other words, a man confronting an armed intruder in his living room would generally be considered to have the duty to retreat through the back door if he could unless he was being threatened with death if he attempted retreat, but if he had a wife and children upstairs, the duty to retreat did not pertain.

The Florida statutes which apply are in Chapter 776
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/0776ContentsIndex.html&StatuteYear=2012&Title=-%3E2012-%3EChapter%20776

SYG is in 776.013.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html

The provision forbidding the police to arrest him until they determined that they had probable cause to rebut his self-defense claim is in 776.032:
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.032.html

[Spazito]

22. My understanding of this is: The defense's case was...

based on the Florida statute entitled "Justifiable Use of Force", this statute is known as the Stand Your Ground law, there is NO statute with the title "Stand Your Ground". The section that was most pertinent to the defense's case was 776.013, Section 3, which states the following:

&quot 3)?A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony."

This section was included in the jury instructions virtually verbatim, the only change was to relate it directly to Zimmerman:


"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."

The confusion seems to lie with the right to have a pretrial immunity hearing based on the above Statute, Section 776.032, a hearing the defense decided against. Because the Zimmerman defense decided against the immunity hearing does not mean the defense's case was no longer based on the Justifiable Use of Force Statute aka the Stand Your Ground Laws, it only means they opted not to use Section 776.032 of it.

Here is the link to the Statute:

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/0776.html

Here is the link to the jury instructions:

http://media.cmgdigital.com/shared/news/documents/2013/07/12/jury_instructions_1.pdf

Here is a link I found helpful in trying to sort this out in my mind:

http://www.criminaldefenseattorneytampa.com/PracticeAreas/DomesticViolenceBattery/StandYourGroundLaw.aspx

I hope this is helpful to you.

[cthulu2016]

27. There was no opportunity to retreat from deadly force alleged, so no.

There is no allegation that TM had a gun or knife. The only claim of extreme force from TM regards hand-to-hand combat with TM atop GZ.

SYG refers to your obligation to retreat, or lack of such obligation, in the face of force.

The prosecution held that there was no force for GZ to retreat from.

In the defense argument, there was no opportunity to retreat from force.

No SYG came into play.

SYG is part of the Florida law and was referenced in jury instructions because they were being instructed on Florida self-defense law, of which SYG is a part.

re: your numbered items. 1 and 2 are false, but I don't doubt people on TV said them.

SYG is part of the law, not something that can be waived. What was waived was the right to a pre-trial hearing to dismiss on SYG. Waiving that hearing does not in any way reduce ones ability to rely on SYG in a trial because SYG is the law whether there's a pretrial hearing or not. The legal definitions of self-defense remain the same for use in a subsequent trial.