View Single Post
Old July 15, 2013, 12:06 PM   #90
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
Quote:
Originally Posted by MLeake
...Point being, since the Not Guilty verdict was predicated on self-defense, and the reasonable belief that force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm, in theory Zimmerman should get legal relief from the state of Florida for legal costs and lost income, and should be immune from civil suit.

I think the state may try to claim that the jury did not find a need for self-defense, but simply did not think the state had a strong enough case....
There are a number of things wrong with those statements:
  1. A verdict of "not guilty" is not an affirmative finding that the theory of the defense was correct. It is only a determination that the State did not meet its burden of proof.

  2. A verdict of "not guilty" can not, as a matter of law, be used in other proceedings to establish the truth of claims of the defense.

  3. There is no way that Zimmerman, based on the result, could, "...get legal relief from the state of Florida for legal costs and lost income..." --

    1. 776.032(3) provides for an award of attorney fees and other damages only when the defendant in a civil suit (not a criminal action) has established his entitlement to recovery.

    2. Any award under 776.032(3) would be the financial responsibility of the unsuccessful plaintiff in the civil suit (not the State). If the unsuccessful plaintiff doesn't have any money, the defendant will have to bear all his own expenses and financial losses.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Frank Ettin is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.02719 seconds with 8 queries