Florida Supreme Court reverses rule of law

[CJB]

July 9th, the Florida Supreme Court issued a ruling in a self defense/Castle Doctrine/Stand your Ground case.

The court stated that the DEFENDANT must prove his innocence, at pretrial, thus negating the centuries old and guaranteed right of the defendant to be innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

The Florida statute involved, is written plainly to provide immunity from prosecution in cases of self defense where a person is presented with a home intruder, or where they are in reasonable fear of great bodily injury or death while not in their home.

The court finds, however, that the law is not to their liking, so they effectively rewrote it, stating now that the defense must prove they are immune from prosecution, criminally.... and in civil cases as well, which Florida law also provides immunity from.

Having to mount a full defense, prior to trial is absurd and negates the purpose of that portion of the law, which is not to re-victemize the victem with a burdonsom legal entanglement.

In effect, the law is completely thrown out, for the following reason. In Florida, if the state prosecutes you, and you prevail, you are entitled to pass your legal fees and defense costs to the state, which is required by law to pay them. But wait.... no trial, no repayment of fees! So in essence, you can spend half a million to defend yourself BEFORE going to trial, and be out that money forever. That's that. No lawyer would take the case based on the fact that they will never get paid, unless you're filthy rich... and most folks are not. So instead of spending maybe ten thousand on basic pre-trial legal representation, you have none, and will be forced to go to criminal and civil court.... the law is made impotent.

And thats what's happenin' in Florida

[JohnR]

Yeah, that's troubling, to say the least. Can it be appealed to a higher court? Do we want to take that chance, the way the courts are these days?

[SlowBurn]

Honestly, looking at it objectively, the ruling doesn't really justify the emails. As construed, the law gives the defense the opportunity to have a judge throw the case out even if there is a factual dispute about the issue of self defense.

Without the statute for example if there's any witness who says the aggressor had stopped threatening before being shot, the defendant would have to face a jury trial, even if the witness is a proven liar and everyone else says otherwise. This statute and ruling allows the judge to determine pre-trial that the preponderance (the balance or greater weight) of the evidence supports justification and the defendant is immune. Yes, there's a burden to establish immunity by showing there's more evidence on the side of justification than not, but its not going to be difficult if the facts are there. If the judge doesn't find immunity, the state still has the burden of disproving the justification, beyond a reasonable doubt, at the trial.

We may have preferred a more favorable ruling. But looking at wording of the statute, and the way immunity statutes are usually interpreted, this was always the most likely interpretation of the statute.

[Longitude Zero]

Is there a link to the case citing so we can read it for ourselves and determine how it may be applied elsewhere with same/similar laws?

[SlowBurn]

Is there a link to the case citing so we can read it for ourselves and determine how it may be applied elsewhere with same/similar laws?

http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/2015/sc13-2312.pdf

[CJB]

You don't know Florida law, and I suggest you read it, as I have. Its quite clear.

The law says that the person who defends themselves, in prescribed manner, is immune for even being arrested., let alone being prosecuted.

The state should have to prove there is a reason that the law does not apply. The law, is the law. Instead, the SCOFl has rewritten the law, with its ruling, saying that the defendant must prove innocence to escape prosecution.

This my dear lad, is absurd beyond recognition in all other aspects of criminal justice that I know of.

Florida 716 is pretty clear and an easy read.

By way of this ruling, the CIVIL immunity is also dissolved.... or rather, placed upon the defendant as well. Again, the law is clear - no civil case allowed. There used to be an automatic dismissal because the civil case was prohibited. Now the defendant must prove, once again, before trial, to a judge that they are innocent, before the dismissal can happen.

There is this thing called the law, and a thing called the Florida Constitution. The court, instead of adressing the constitutionality of law, chose to effectively rewrite a very clear law.

It doesn't matter what folks find reasonable for a court to decide.... the law is the law!

Honestly, looking at it objectively, the ruling doesn't really justify the emails. As construed, the law gives the defense the opportunity to have a judge throw the case out even if there is a factual dispute about the issue of self defense.

Without the statute for example if there's any witness who says the aggressor had stopped threatening before being shot, the defendant would have to face a jury trial, even if the witness is a proven liar and everyone else says otherwise. This statute and ruling allows the judge to determine pre-trial that the preponderance (the balance or greater weight) of the evidence supports justification and the defendant is immune. Yes, there's a burden to establish immunity by showing there's more evidence on the side of justification than not, but its not going to be difficult if the facts are there. If the judge doesn't find immunity, the state still has the burden of disproving the justification, beyond a reasonable doubt, at the trial.

We may have preferred a more favorable ruling. But looking at wording of the statute, and the way immunity statutes are usually interpreted, this was always the most likely interpretation of the statute.

[SlowBurn]

You don't know Florida law, and I suggest you read it, as I have. Its quite clear.

The law says that the person who defends themselves, in prescribed manner, is immune for even being arrested., let alone being prosecuted.

The state should have to prove there is a reason that the law does not apply. The law, is the law. Instead, the SCOFl has rewritten the law, with its ruling, saying that the defendant must prove innocence to escape prosecution.

This my dear lad, is absurd beyond recognition in all other aspects of criminal justice that I know of.

Florida 716 is pretty clear and an easy read.

By way of this ruling, the CIVIL immunity is also dissolved.... or rather, placed upon the defendant as well. Again, the law is clear - no civil case allowed. There used to be an automatic dismissal because the civil case was prohibited. Now the defendant must prove, once again, before trial, to a judge that they are innocent, before the dismissal can happen.

There is this thing called the law, and a thing called the Florida Constitution. The court, instead of adressing the constitutionality of law, chose to effectively rewrite a very clear law.

It doesn't matter what folks find reasonable for a court to decide.... the law is the law!

I've read it rather carefully actually. The statute provides for immunity from arrest and prosecution in certain circumstances. However, what happens if a person who believes he's entitled to immunity is nevertheless arrested and charged? How is the immunity provided by the statute actually enforced? The law itself does not provide a procedure. The court went with the normal way a claim of immunity from legal process is usually enforced, by proving entitlement to immunity in a pre-trial hearing using the preponderance of the evidence standard of proof. I think that was always the most likely outcome.

I'd rather have the state required to prove a negative - that the defendant is not entitled to the immunity he claims, but that would have been a somewhat unexpected win and I don't think this ruling is the end of the world. We'll just have to disagree.

[Longitude Zero]

It doesn't matter what folks find reasonable for a court to decide.... the law is the law!

In a perfect world...Maybe. In practicality the law is what the latest ruling from the highest court that a particular law can be appealed and decided is the law. Courts and especially appellate courts write and rewrite laws each and every day. It is the way of the world. I do not like or agree with it but to argue that is not reality is to ignore reality.

[TheTman]

I guess they didn't want to be out done by the Federal Supreme Court, and had to rewrite a law of their own. They should stick to determining if a law is constitutional or not. Nothing gives them the authority to write new laws from the bench. That is bypassing the legal way laws are passed. The people of Florida need to recall or impeach some of their Supreme Court members.

[marshal kane]

First, you start off with your party being the majority in both houses. Then, you can pass any law you damn well please and even if you don't have the majority, you bypass the legislature by issuing executive fiats. Second, you appoint judges to the supreme courts that share your way of thinking to make sure your unconstitutional laws cannot be challenged while you're still in office. That is the reality of how things work today. If you don't vote, you get the kind of government - be it good or bad - that those in power chooses to impose on you.

[Longitude Zero]

First, you start off with your party being the majority in both houses. Then, you can pass any law you damn well please and even if you don't have the majority, you bypass the legislature by issuing executive fiats. Second, you appoint judges to the supreme courts that share your way of thinking to make sure your unconstitutional laws cannot be challenged while you're still in office. That is the reality of how things work today. If you don't vote, you get the kind of government - be it good or bad - that those in power chooses to impose on you.

Precisely. We as citizens have four boxes to use to change the trajectory of our government:

1. The Soap Box
2. The Jury Box
3. The Ballot Box
4. The Cartridge aka Bullet box