A Miami judge ruled on Monday that new revisions to Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law are unconstitutional. Florida Governor Rick Scott signed the amended “Stand Your Ground” law on June 9,  requiring prosecutors to prove a defendant wasn’t acting in self-defense at pretrial hearings.

Miami-Dade Circuit Court Judge Milton Hirsch held that the legislative changes altered the burden of proof in “Stand Your Ground” cases, raising the threshold “from mere preponderance of the evidence to clear and convincing evidence.” Per Florida’s Constitution, such changes could only be made by the Florida Supreme Court, not the state legislature, and were therefore unconstitutional, Hirsch said. In outlining the necessity for a separation of powers among the three branches of government, Hirsch even referenced a paper about the Ministry of Magic’s judicial overreach in “Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix.”

Hirsch’s ruling comes as the result of two “Stand Your Ground” cases in his court. Liletha Rutherford was charged with aggravated assault with a firearm and grand theft for pulling a gun on a couple during an argument. Omar Rodriguez was charged with first-degree murder for shooting and killing Jose Rey over an argument about Rey’s dog. Rodriguez claimed Rey charged at him with a knife. Police recovered a knife at the crime scene, but discovered Rodriguez’s DNA on the knife, not Rey’s.

Florida lawmakers reacted to the ruling on social media. State Senator Rob Bradley, who sponsored one of the amendments to the “Stand Your Ground” law, said in a tweet that the court’s ruling “attacks the Legislature’s role in defining and protecting our individual rights.”

Today’s Miami trial court ruling attacks the Legislature’s role in defining and protecting our individual rights. /1

— Rob Bradley (@Rob_Bradley) July 3, 2017

Following Hirsch’s ruling, Rutherford and Rodriguez will now each have to prove they acted in self-defense. Currently, the ruling only applies to those two cases. However, appeals are likely to make their way to appellate courts and the Florida Supreme Court.

The effectiveness of “Stand Your Ground” laws hasn’t exactly been clear. In March, Florida State Senator Dennis Baxley claimed that since Florida’s 2005 “Stand Your Ground” law, “we’ve seen violent crime continuously go down.”

PolitiFact pointed out some flaws in that statement. While violent crime in Florida has dropped a cumulative 34.9 percent from 2005 to 2015, that decrease is not “continuous” as Baxley contends. Data show occasional increases in Florida’s violent crime rate during that 10-year period, however not enough to really counteract that overall decline in violent crime.

That said, PolitiFact also highlighted the fact that national violent crime rates have also been decreasing since the 1990s. It has yet to be proven whether Florida’s decrease in violent crime has been due to its “Stand Your Ground” laws, considering several states with similar drops do not have “Stand Your Ground” laws.

Critics of “Stand Your Ground” say the laws disproportionately benefit defendants who kill black victims compared to those who kill white victims, and often allow defendants to avoid murder charges.

The Tampa Bay Times identified nearly 200 “Stand You Ground” cases. Of those cases, 70 percent of defendants who invoked a “Stand Your Ground” defense were acquitted. Seventy-three percent of defendants who killed a black person faced no penalty, while 59 percent of defendants who killed a white person faced no penalty.

One of the most high-profile “Stand Your Ground” cases involved George Zimmerman, the “neighborhood watchman” who shot and killed 17-year-old black Florida teenager Trayvon Martin in 2012. Zimmerman did not invoke the “Stand Your Ground” law in his trial, but the judge issued instructions to the jury along the same lines as the law’s language, saying Zimmerman “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.” Zimmerman was acquitted of all charges in Martin’s death.

“Stand Your Ground” may stay in place in Florida for now, but Hirsch’s ruling could limit the extent to which the law is allowed to reach. The question has the potential to make it to higher courts and get decided once and for all.

Marcus Dieterle

Marcus is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a rising senior at Towson University where he is double majoring in mass communication (with a concentration in journalism and new media) and political science. When he isn’t in the newsroom, you can probably find him reading on the train, practicing his Portuguese, or eating too much pasta. Contact Marcus at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Miami Judge Rules “Stand Your Ground” Law Revisions Are Unconstitutional appeared first on Law Street.

Everyone in the United States is expected to follow the black and white laws of the land or face the penalties; but how often do we find ourselves in the gray area? Luckily, law schools aross the country offer seminars to clear up confusion surrounding everyday legal issues for the average joe.

The People’s Law School at Baylor is comprised of free, hour-long courses taught by volunteer lawyers and legal experts. Baylor’s curriculum offers participants the chance to learn about a variety of legal issues — from buying and selling real estate to wills and estate planning.  

The “Stand Your Ground, Self-Defense and the Castle Doctrine” course taught at the February 16 session by criminal defense attorney Susan Johnston, brought the ins and outs of the highly controversial law to the average citizen. Johnston attempted to decode the perceptions of self defense and convey its legal implementations.

Self-defense laws vary from state to state. For example, New York law states that self defense, or deadly force, may be used against another person only when is it necessary to defend oneself against what one reasonably believes to be a kidnapping, rape, or robbery; however, if one elects to use violence against another — especially to the point of death — his or her actions will be highly scrutinized and legally analyzed for justification. Similarly, the Castle Doctrine gives individuals the right to forcibly protect themselves or others when in their own homes. In Florida, for example, the Castle Doctrine is very strong and applies not only to one’s home, but to any dwelling, mobile or immobile.

In the course, Johnston used the example of a case that she prosecuted in 1997, in which a man was convicted for second degree manslaughter and sentenced to 20 years for killing a 14-year-old boy during a home invasion. In that case, rather than instantly calling police to report the break in, the man held the young intruder captive for several hours while calling friends to explain his intentions of shooting the teen. Ultimately the man poked the boy with the gun, which went off and killed him. The man claimed that it was an accident, but the jury could not find beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not mean to shoot the child. As exemplified by the law, simply because the child broke into the man’s house did not give the man the right to shoot and kill the young intruder without penalty.  

The Stand Your Ground course is especially relevant now, in light of several high-profile cases in which defendants invoked such self-defense laws, including the George Zimmerman and Dunn Trials. Both of these cases centered on the issue of whether self defense was necessary in order for the accused to prevent his own imminent death or bodily harm. 

The rise of People’s Law courses is an important addition to the justice system, as they contribute to increasing the public’s legal knowledge. The implementation of these courses alleviates some of the confusion that non-lawyers experience when dealing with legal issues both big and small. A population well educated in their legal rights is beneficial for all parties involved — both the individuals as well as the public at large.

[WacoTribe] [The People’s Law School] [Baylor Law School]

—

Taylor Garre (@TaylorLynn013) 

Featured image courtesy of [Xbxg32000 via Wikipedia]

Taylor Garre

Taylor Garre is a student at Fordham University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Taylor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post People’s Law School Teaches Average Joe His Legal Rights appeared first on Law Street.

The George Zimmerman trial has been one of the most hotly debated topics in the news recently, and with public outrage resulting from the verdict people question whether or not the federal government will step in with charges of its own. Although it is technically possible for the government to pursue federal charges against Zimmerman for the death of Trayvon Martin, there are several challenges that federal prosecutors would face.  Because the state and federal governments are two separate spheres, the concept of double jeopardy does not apply and Zimmerman can be charged in both state and federal court for the same crime.  However, federal charges can only be filed if the state prosecution did not satisfy a significant federal interest, and if the federal government believes sufficient evidence for a conviction exists.

Federal civil rights laws were enacted to ensure proper enforcement of the law, allowing for the federal government to intervene in the event that the state left federal interests “unvindicated.” Additionally, civil rights cases are rarely prosecuted at a federal level after having already been tried in state courts, but it has happened.  The most notable example of this is the case involving the police officers accused of beating Rodney King Jr. in 1991.  All four officers were initially acquitted in state court, but the subsequent federal trial led to two convictions.  In that case, and the argument could be made for George Zimmerman as well, federal charges furthered-a government interest in bringing racially-motivated criminals to justice.

Lastly, the application of federal law to the Zimmerman case could create a problem for prosecutors.  Many laws relating to racial violence and hate crimes deal with state authority over acts committed in public areas.  Because Zimmerman was not an actor of the government nor did the altercation take place on public property, a new statute that deems any racially-motivated violence a crime would most likely be used by the prosecution.  In order for federal prosecutors to convict Zimmerman they will need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that his actions were motivated by race.  Doing so would not be an easy task, as there were no witnesses and Zimmerman has previously claimed self-defense.

Although there are many challenges that prosecutors would face, federal charges are not completely out of the question, especially as public outrage continues.

[Reuters.com]

—

Featured image courtesy of [Werth Media via Flickr]

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Will Zimmerman Face Federal Charges? appeared first on Law Street.