Originally Posted By: Der Ami
I believe,after listening to the Fla.lawyer talking heads,that the reason they didn't go for a "stand your ground" hearing was that if a judge found in his favor,he would still be subject to a civil suit. On the other hand, if a jury found him not guilty,under the self defense law,he wouldn't be subject to it.
Mike


Different states have different laws, but getting acquitted of murder charges doesn't prevent a civil suit in most jurisdictions. Ask OJ. Unless something is peculiar to Florida law, he could still be most likely sued for wrongful death. Under Ga. law because of the different standards of proof of civil versus criminal, acquital in criminal does not bar civil suits for the same conduct. In civil, it's a preponderance or greater weight of evidence. In criminal, it's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The verdict in Zimmerman was not guilty. The jury made no specific finding why he was acquited. If the lawyers said that the stand your ground hearing was avoided because of an attempt to avoid civil liability, I think that's a smokescreen for the real reason and makes little sense because if he was justified in using deadly force, then the same defense would apply in a civil suit in most jurisdictions. They didn't want him to open his mouth anymore than he had. He had already made statements that they wish he hadn't made. If they thought he had a clear shot of immunity they would have pursued it. Lawyers don't(or shouldn't) jeopardize a client's freedom for the sake of avoiding a judgment that could never be enforced. "You can't get blood out of a turnip, but you can put the turnip in jail" as an old judge around here used to say as he sent deadbeat fathers to jail for failing to support their children. The quote was directed to lawyers who used the "can't get blood out of a turnip" argument. Gil