Mark 'O'Mara's 8/13 Press Conference

[IgnatiusJDonnelly]

Under the law it should be decided on what the trier of fact believes is reasonable, not what Zimmerman believed.

That aspect of traditional self defense law was not changed by the so-called SYG legislation. That is a canard spread by opponents of the law.

A canard that is widely believed by supporters of SYG.

[RickyJim]

How does the part you quoted make that point? It says nothing about the trier of fact.

Right, that part doesn't address what the trier has to believe, just what Zimmerman had to believe.  There are other places, supposedly, that specify that the trier of fact has to believe something is reasonable, more likely than not, convincing and clear, beyond a reasonable doubt, etc.  For example, I have several times asked in this forum what standard the trier of fact should use to determine whether 776.041 or 776.012 should be used in the case.  I guess it is different at an immunity hearing and at trial.  I have never gotten an answer.

[annoyedbeyond]

A canard that is widely believed by supporters of SYG.

Isn't the main function of the SYG to provide a system where people involved in self defense don't have to wind up arrested and spend time in jail and mega bucks on defense lawyers plus wrongful death and other civil suits?

Honestly, there's been so much back and forth about the whole thing...maybe we need an actual chart or something to keep track.

[annoyedbeyond]

Right, that part doesn't address what the trier has to believe, just what Zimmerman had to believe.  There are other places, supposedly, that specify that the trier of fact has to believe something is reasonable, more likely than not, convincing and clear, beyond a reasonable doubt, etc.  For example, I have several times asked in this forum what standard the trier of fact should use to determine whether 776.041 or 776.012 should be used in the case.  I guess it is different at an immunity hearing and at trial.  I have never gotten an answer.

The problem with it being what the trier has to believe is that it's incredibly subjective.

[annoyedbeyond]

The word "reasonable" ("reasonably believes" in the statute) is code for a finding that is NOT in the hands of the accused, but instead is in the hands of the judge or jury.  If an accused could simply assert his belief is reasonable, then the word becomes a throwaway.

I would say that's not totally true. The judge and/or jury needs to place themselves--as best they can--into the mind and position of the person on trial. They have to think of what that person reasonably believed, not what they reasonably believe.

I took what RJ was saying as the trier of fact and the accused having an equal footing in it, but from the way the statue is written I don't think they do.

[cboldt]

I would say that's not totally true. The judge and/or jury needs to place themselves--as best they can--into the mind and position of the person on trial. They have to think of what that person reasonably believed, not what they reasonably believe.

I took what RJ was saying as the trier of fact and the accused having an equal footing in it, but from the way the statue is written I don't think they do.

I agree that the thought process is to put yourself in the shoes of the accused, but then you (the judge or jury) are going to decide if it is reasonable to be in fear of serious injury or death while in that predicament.  They aren't "in the mind" of the defendant, they are in his predicament.

Under FL law, it isn't that the objective reasonableness (that's you agreeing it's appropriate to be in such fear, in that predicament) and subjective reasonableness (that's Zimmerman saying he was in such fear) are on equal footing.  The law is that BOTH elements must be present, in order to justify the use of force in self defense.

[IgnatiusJDonnelly]

Mr. Boldt,
Am I correct in remembering you  opining that Z's case is a "slam dunk"?

[Kyreth]

The way I've found best to try and explain it (kinda hoping someone shows me a better one hehe), is that the statute does say that it's based on if the accused had a reasonable fear of great bodily harm or death.

But the only way to judge if the accused's belief or fear is reasonable is for the trier of fact to apply the "reasonable person" standard to the accused's circumstances.

[annoyedbeyond]

I agree that the thought process is to put yourself in the shoes of the accused, but then you (the judge or jury) are going to decide if it is reasonable to be in fear of serious injury or death while in that predicament.  They aren't "in the mind" of the defendant, they are in his predicament.

Under FL law, it isn't that the objective reasonableness (that's you agreeing it's appropriate to be in such fear, in that predicament) and subjective reasonableness (that's Zimmerman saying he was in such fear) are on equal footing.  The law is that BOTH elements must be present, in order to justify the use of force in self defense.

"Predicament" is a much better way to put it than the way I did, thanks.

[DebFrmHell]

Mr. Boldt,
Am I correct in remembering you  opining that Z's case is a "slam dunk"?

There is no such thing as a "slam dunk" unless you are playing BBall....

[RickyJim]

The way I've found best to try and explain it (kinda hoping someone shows me a better one hehe), is that the statute does say that it's based on if the accused had a reasonable fear of great bodily harm or death.

But the only way to judge if the accused's belief or fear is reasonable is for the trier of fact to apply the "reasonable person" standard to the accused's circumstances.

But that begs the question of explaining the difference between the standard of proof of say 776.012, 776.013 or 776.041 at an immunity hearing or at trial.  They all use "reasonable" in the same way but don't get explicit as to their usage in different kinds of legal proceedings.

[annoyedbeyond]

But that begs the question of explaining the difference between the standard of proof of say 776.012, 776.013 or 776.041 at an immunity hearing or at trial.  They all use "reasonable" in the same way but don't get explicit as to their usage in different kinds of legal proceedings.

Why are you stressing over the meaning of "reasonable"? Doesn't reasonable mean what reasonable means, whether it's in this section of the law or that?

[Kyreth]

But that begs the question of explaining the difference between the standard of proof of say 776.012, 776.013 or 776.041 at an immunity hearing or at trial.  They all use "reasonable" in the same way but don't get explicit as to their usage in different kinds of legal proceedings.

AFAIK it's all the same proceeding.  The SYG statute led to the creation of the immunity hearing thanks to Dennis, and that hearing can be used to try and give immunity to any case of self defense.

[AJ]

Here's what it says in the Florida Standard Jury Instructions - 3.6(f) Justifiable Use of Deadly Force (quoted from page 63 in the pdf linked at the bottom):

Read in all cases.
In deciding whether [the] defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you must judge [him] [her] by the circumstances by which [he] [she] was surrounded at the time the force was used. The danger facing the defendant 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 the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. Based upon appearances, the defendant must have actually believed that the danger was real.

http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/jury_instructions/chapters/entireversion/onlinejurryinstructions.pdf


Also, maybe a question for one of the professionals, am I wrong in thinking that "Stand Your Ground" is just a clause within the self-defense statutes .. or is chapter 776 of Florida law the "Stand Your Ground" statutes and self-defense is common law?

[DebFrmHell]

The other thing I noticed during the conference...

MOM was describing GZ's current state of mind.  I thought it sounded very much like PTSD.  I wondered if he was under a doctor's care for that.  It seems as if his Family Physician recommended that shortly after the shooting.