04-30-2013, 07:24 PM
^ This case is unusual and bringing to light some of the loopholes and unintended applications of the Stand Your Ground laws. IMO.
If my understanding is correct, there isn't a specific requirement that SYG immunity be pursued ahead of/in lieu of a self defense criminal trial. Since the sequence isn't specifically spelled out legally, Judge Nelson (got to watch her today for the first time; very in control of the court room and matter of fact) is allowing a reversal of what many believe was the intended sequence.
Your concern/question is shared by the Martin's attorney, Crump. Based on his public statements, he believes that allowing the possibility for immunity using SYG AFTER a jury trial is outside the intent of the law. He doesn't believe that immunity should be an option as a second chance or fall back (with a judge) if a defendant fails to convince a jury that he acted in self defense.
IMO, O'Mara doesn't want George to testify (as required) at a SYG immunity hearing because he isn't confident that a judge would grant immunity. If immunity were denied, the prosecution could use what was revealed in the failed SYG immunity hearing against Zimmerman at the subsequent murder 2 jury trial.
I think it's a smart strategy by the defense (whether it's an exploitation of a weakly written law or not) if they have good reason to fear that immunity would be denied.
It will be interesting to see if the SYG law gets re-worked in the near future. As a result of this case, there's a lot of talk and differing opinions about its validity as it's currently written.
All JMO to the best of my understanding...
If my understanding is correct, there isn't a specific requirement that SYG immunity be pursued ahead of/in lieu of a self defense criminal trial. Since the sequence isn't specifically spelled out legally, Judge Nelson (got to watch her today for the first time; very in control of the court room and matter of fact) is allowing a reversal of what many believe was the intended sequence.
Your concern/question is shared by the Martin's attorney, Crump. Based on his public statements, he believes that allowing the possibility for immunity using SYG AFTER a jury trial is outside the intent of the law. He doesn't believe that immunity should be an option as a second chance or fall back (with a judge) if a defendant fails to convince a jury that he acted in self defense.
IMO, O'Mara doesn't want George to testify (as required) at a SYG immunity hearing because he isn't confident that a judge would grant immunity. If immunity were denied, the prosecution could use what was revealed in the failed SYG immunity hearing against Zimmerman at the subsequent murder 2 jury trial.
I think it's a smart strategy by the defense (whether it's an exploitation of a weakly written law or not) if they have good reason to fear that immunity would be denied.
It will be interesting to see if the SYG law gets re-worked in the near future. As a result of this case, there's a lot of talk and differing opinions about its validity as it's currently written.
All JMO to the best of my understanding...