But he wasn't immune from prosecution (the whole trial thing), so that law doesn't seem to apply. If charges had never been brought, he'd have a chance to stop a civil suit. But the state decided to prosecute, and he didn't get a hearing to invoke Stand Your Ground, so he's open to civil suits.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Zimmermann verdict in. Case for civil suits?
- Thread starter ClydeFrog
- Start date
Yeah, based on overhead's excerpt and Florida self-defense statute 776.012, it appears that Zimmerman cannot be sued personally. Doesn't seem to require a stand your ground defense.
http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2012/Chapter776/All
http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2012/Chapter776/All
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.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1188, ch. 97-102; s. 2, ch. 2005-27.
The statute doesn't make it clear that this has to be done preemptively, not to my reading anyway. Your reading of it implies that it is up to the prosecutor to make this determination.But he wasn't immune from prosecution (the whole trial thing), so that law doesn't seem to apply. If charges had never been brought, he'd have a chance to stop a civil suit. But the state decided to prosecute, and he didn't get a hearing to invoke Stand Your Ground, so he's open to civil suits.
Tom Servo, while the standard of proof is lower for a civil suit, I would think the not guilty verdict, plus the hoard of evidence that would most likely be allowed in the civil suit that was not allowed in the trial (Trayvon's behavioral history, use of drugs, problems at school, etc) would make a civil suit an ultimate loser.
OTOH, I have to wonder if there would not be a big money case to be made against msnbc for its character assassinating re-edit of the 911 call.
Recall, "He looks guilty.... he looks black,"?
Leaving out all the queries from the dispatcher, and responses from Zimmerman that occurred in between those two statements completely changed the tone of what was reported. msnbc claimed they were going for brevity, and not a change of substance, but we all know that was crap.
I suspect that a jury might feel the same way.
OTOH, I have to wonder if there would not be a big money case to be made against msnbc for its character assassinating re-edit of the 911 call.
Recall, "He looks guilty.... he looks black,"?
Leaving out all the queries from the dispatcher, and responses from Zimmerman that occurred in between those two statements completely changed the tone of what was reported. msnbc claimed they were going for brevity, and not a change of substance, but we all know that was crap.
I suspect that a jury might feel the same way.
I too, have thought from the beginning of the trial a Violation of Travon Martin's Civil Rights Federal charge might be pursued in case of a Not Guilty Verdict. Also noted was a statement by the NAACP to pursued with the DOJ the legality of "Stand Your Ground."
I have no doubt they will try it, but I'm not at all sure that would fly, the self defense aspect is just as powerful in a civil rights case.
I'm not an attorney either, but I can't seem reconcile the perception that they could never have won a conviction based on the actual evidence, to me (a non lawyer) is seems to the point of unethical or maybe misconduct on the part of the prosecutor office. Which would also explain why there was no arrest until 44 days later, when we know the police did a very thorough investigation, it almost seems like they were forced to arrest him.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
The statute:
From s. 776.032, we see that someone who justifiably uses force is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action IF the use of force is permitted by s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031.
776.013 is home protection. The incident did not occur within Zimmerma's home. Does not apply. However ...
776.012 says this:
The immunity part of the statute says:
To me, as a non-lawyer, it appears that Zimmerman is in uncharted territory. He WAS prosecuted, so obviously there was no court finding that he is immune from prosecution. It appears that a specific finding of criminal immunity is necessary to trigger the civil immunity, and Zimmerman doesn't have a finding of criminal immunity. It appears to me that he can be sued in a civil action. How that would play out is anybody's guess. One might hope that a judge would look at the fact the police declined to charge him and that he was acquitted when a special prosecutor did finally charge and prosecute him as perhaps showing that his use of deadly force was "justified," and therefore dismiss the case.
But -- if he got another judge like Debra Nelson, he would be in deep kimchee.
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.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1188, ch. 97-102; s. 2, ch. 2005-27.
776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or
(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or
(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle 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 entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
(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.
(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
(5) As used in this section, the term:
(a) “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.
(b) “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.
(c) “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.
776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—
(1) 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.
(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.
(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).
History.—s. 4, ch. 2005-27
From s. 776.032, we see that someone who justifiably uses force is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action IF the use of force is permitted by s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031.
776.013 is home protection. The incident did not occur within Zimmerma's home. Does not apply. However ...
776.012 says this:
Zimmerman clearly falls under this section of the statute. Attorney O'Mara's closing argument pretty much stated exactly that. But ...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 ...
The immunity part of the statute says:
(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).
To me, as a non-lawyer, it appears that Zimmerman is in uncharted territory. He WAS prosecuted, so obviously there was no court finding that he is immune from prosecution. It appears that a specific finding of criminal immunity is necessary to trigger the civil immunity, and Zimmerman doesn't have a finding of criminal immunity. It appears to me that he can be sued in a civil action. How that would play out is anybody's guess. One might hope that a judge would look at the fact the police declined to charge him and that he was acquitted when a special prosecutor did finally charge and prosecute him as perhaps showing that his use of deadly force was "justified," and therefore dismiss the case.
But -- if he got another judge like Debra Nelson, he would be in deep kimchee.
Tom Servo said:Precedent suggests that the hearing is supposed to take case before a trial, not after, so this could be tricky.
You are certainly correct about the precedent requiring an immunity hearing to take place before a trial rather than during a trial. But I am not sure that waiving the right with respect to one trial precludes exercising the right to an immunity hearing at a subsequent trial.
Zimmerman waived his right to an immunity hearing at the beginning of the criminal trial. I remember thinking at the time that what his attorney said sounded odd - that Zimmerman was waiving his right to an immunity hearing "for this trial."
I think we may get the chance to watch new precedent being set in Florida.
I know how I'd proceed if I were Zimmerman's defense team. I'd call the IT specialist and prove that the DA's team wasn't throwing straight dice and had been withholding discovery. I'd then argue that they couldn't effectively argue an immunity hearing prior to the trial because they hadn't received all the evidence they were entitled to at that point. And I think they'd prevail.You are certainly correct about the precedent requiring an immunity hearing to take place before a trial rather than during a trial. But I am not sure that waiving the right with respect to one trial precludes exercising the right to an immunity hearing at a subsequent trial.
Zimmerman waived his right to an immunity hearing at the beginning of the criminal trial. I remember thinking at the time that what his attorney said sounded odd - that Zimmerman was waiving his right to an immunity hearing "for this trial."
I think we may get the chance to watch new precedent being set in Florida.
Those things are hard to predict. Back in 1995, a football player was found not guilty of murder, but a later civil suit found him liable based on preponderance of evidence. Juries are a very difficult animal to predict.I would think the not guilty verdict, plus the hoard of evidence that would most likely be allowed in the civil suit that was not allowed in the trial
From a purely practical standpoint, a civil suit is about recovering a monetary judgement. I don't know that Zimmerman has anything that would make a civil suit worthwhile, and since it didn't happen on his property, his homeowner's insurance company couldn't be targeted either.
He's collected quite a bit in donations. Also, a civil judgement would cover future earnings from books, movie deals, etc.From a purely practical standpoint, a civil suit is about recovering a monetary judgement. I don't know that Zimmerman has anything that would make a civil suit worthwhile, and since it didn't happen on his property, his homeowner's insurance company couldn't be targeted either.
All gone to his defense team from what I can tell. Estimates I've seen indicate that his defense costs would have been close to half a million had the lawyers not been willing to donate much of their time.
If he does get a book/movie deal, I would expect to see a civil suit then...
If he does get a book/movie deal, I would expect to see a civil suit then...
Recovering monetary damages would be the ostensible intent, but the actual objective would be to ruin the defendant. If he can't pay up, he can expect forfeiture or property or garnishment of wages.I don't know that Zimmerman has anything that would make a civil suit worthwhile
silvermane_1
New member
i'm curious about a civil suit as well.
Anyone can sue anyone they want. The issue is whether he could find a jury who would find against the grieving parents and whether they have anything to recover against. Yes, they got a settlement from the HOA, but I don't know how much it was or how much they've incurred in attorneys fees. It's also possible they put the settlement money into a trust that Zimmerman wouldn't be able to get to.Martin was a minor. Can Zimmerman sue his parents for the actions Marting committed and the resulting costs to Zimmerman?
MissPistol
New member
Are we speculating on future prospects?
What about civil suits going the other way - like GZ suing whatever tv stations that redacted key elements of the 911 call to make him out to be a big racist? some of those actions directly flavored the public opinion on this thing for some time. I don't know all the potential here, but he has to move to another state, probably hire bodyguards for all his family members, lost weight, etc. I suspect an imaginative soul could go on for some time with ideas. He is going to have some big bills to pay.......
What about civil suits going the other way - like GZ suing whatever tv stations that redacted key elements of the 911 call to make him out to be a big racist? some of those actions directly flavored the public opinion on this thing for some time. I don't know all the potential here, but he has to move to another state, probably hire bodyguards for all his family members, lost weight, etc. I suspect an imaginative soul could go on for some time with ideas. He is going to have some big bills to pay.......
It's possible. Richard Jewell had some success in that, but the cost of litigating against major corporations can be prohibitive. Usually, those suits end in settlements, with non-disclosure agreements being part of the arrangement.What about civil suits going the other way - like GZ suing whatever tv stations that redacted key elements of the 911 call to make him out to be a big racist?
Given the publicity, politics, and rancor, it's hard to clear one's name after a situation like this.